Info Packet. Parking Solutions. PAS Essential

PAS Essential Info Packet PAS EIP-24 September 2009 Parking Solutions The Planning Advisory Service (PAS) researchers are pleased to provide you with information from our world-class planning library. This packet represents a typical collection of documents PAS provides in response to research inquiries from our 1,500 subscribers. For more information about PAS visit www.planning.org/pas.

Copyright 2009. This Essential Information Packet is compiled and distributed by the American Planning Association s Planning Advisory Service with the written permission of the owner(s) of its content. Reuse of the packet s content requires explicit permission from the individual copyright holder(s). American Planning Association 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 60601-5927 1030 15 th St., NW, Suite 750 West, Washington, DC 20005-1503 www.planning.org/pas ISBN: 978-1-61190-102-3

EIP-24 Parking Solutions Modern Approaches to Parking Management Davidson, Michael and Fay Dolnick, eds. 2002. The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking. In Parking Standards. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 510/511. Chicago: American Planning Association. Overview of reducing parking requirements through strategies including shared parking, maximum parking standards, downtown parking standards, and bicycle parking. PAS subscribers can access the rest of the report at http://www.planning.org/pas/reports/subscribers/parking.htm. Litman, Todd. 2009. Parking Management Best Practices: Making Efficient Use of Parking Resources. Zoning Practice, June. Analysis of various strategies to maximize the efficient use of parking resources. Includes Q&A with author. Maryland, State of. 2002. Parking Management and Parking Design. Chapters 2 and 3 in Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices. Governor s Office of Smart Growth. Looks at limiting parking supply and managing parking demand, and discusses a number of parking design best practices. Mukhija, Vinit and Donald Shoup. 2006. Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3): 296 308. Published by Taylor & Francis, Ltd., www.informaworld.com Focusing on the importance of parking quality, not quantity, this article offers five parking-related strategies planners can use to improve urban design. Shoup, Donald. 2006. The Practice of Parking Requirements. Zoning Practice, January. Provides overview of how planners set parking standards; describes some of the problems with the traditional approach. Includes Q&A with author. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development, Community, and Environment Division. 2006. Beyond Generic Parking Requirements, The Costs of Parking, and Innovative Parking Alternatives. Pages 6-33 in Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Discusses problems with inflexible parking requirements and looks at innovative solutions. Shared Parking Capitol Region Council Of Governments. 2002. Shared Parking Fact Sheet. In CRCOG Best Practices Manual. Prepared by Abeles Phillips Preiss and Shapiro. Describes two approaches to promoting shared parking: through contractual agreements between adjacent uses and through parking management districts. Metro. 1997. Model Shared Parking Ordinance Provisions and Model - Shared Use Agreement for Parking Facilities. Appendices A and B in Shared Parking in the Portland Metropolitan Area. Prepared by Stein Engineering. Model shared parking ordinance and model shared use agreement for parking facilities. Page 1 of 6

EIP-24 Parking Solutions Marya Morris, general editor. 2009. Model Shared Parking Ordinance. Chapter 4.10 in Smart Codes: Model Land-Development Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 556. Chicago: American Planning Association. Model shared parking ordinance. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2007. Shared Parking. In Online TDM Encyclopedia. Victoria, British Columbia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Explains conditions that facilitate successful shared parking arrangements; contains model code for shared parking. San Diego (CA), City of. 2009. Shared Parking Agreement. Example of shared parking agreement form. Marshall (PA), Township of. 2008. Zoning. Article 1900, Section 208-1902.B. Shared Parking. Includes schedule of percentages for time periods by which parking requirements can be reduced in calculating shared parking requirements. Sussex (DE), County of. 2008. County Code. Chapter 115, Article XXII, Section 115-165(B). Joint Use and Off-Site Facilities Shared Parking. Authorizes reduction in required parking spaces with shared parking; provides standards. Tumwater (WA), City of. 2009. Municipal Code. Title 18, Chapter 18.50, Section 18.50.090. Shared and Combined Parking Facilities. Defines and provides provisions for shared parking. Parking In-Lieu Fees Davis (CA), City of, Community Development Department. 2004. Staff Report: Resolution Amending the Parking In-lieu Fees for the Central Commercial and Mixed- Use Zoning Districts. January 28. Recommended amendments to existing in-lieu of fee program. Bend (OR), City of. 2004. Parking In Lieu of Fee. Describes revised in-lieu of fee structure and policy. Corvallis (OR), City of. 2007. Council Policy Manual. Policy Area 7, CP 02-7.15. Feein-Lieu Parking Program for Parking-Related Improvements. Establishes fee-in-lieu program for downtown districts; sets fee at $4,000 per space. Friday Harbor (WA), Town of. 2009. Zoning Code. Section 17.68.050. Waiver of Requirements. Establishes fee in lieu of parking requirements and Parking Improvement Fund; sets fee of $13,500 per space. Juneau (AK), City of. 2006. Fee In Lieu of Parking. Memorandum to Assembly Lands Committee from Ben Lyman, Planner, Community Development Department and Rorie Watt, Chief CIP Engineer, Engineering Department. February 1. Staff report on 2004 fee-in-lieu ordinance. Current version of code included. Scottsdale (AZ), City of. 2009. A Resolution of the City of Scottsdale, Maricopa County, Arizona Establishing the Payment, Fee and Fee Adjustment Procedures for Page 2 of 6

EIP-24 Parking Solutions In-Lieu Parking Credit(s) as Provided by the Parking Section of the City of Scottsdale Appendix B Basic Zoning Ordinance. Resolution No. 7847. Adopted February 24. Resolution setting in-lieu parking fee of $11,862.54 per space. Woodland (CA), City of. 2008. Report to Mayor and City Council: Ordinance Adding Downtown Parking Standards, Establishing Parking District Boundaries and In-Lieu of Parking Fee. February 5. Suggestions for setting a parking in-lieu fee. See full Downtown Parking District ordinance below. Parking Requirement Reductions and Exemptions Austin (TX), City of, and American Legal Publishing Corporation. 2009. City Code. Chapter 25-2, Subchapter E, Section 2.4. Parking Reductions. Allows parking reductions for protecting trees or providing carsharing vehicles. Bend (OR), City of. 2008. Development Code. Chapter 3, Section 3.3.300.D, Vehicle Parking Standards for On-Site Requirements - Exceptions and Special Standards for Parking. Provides for up to 10% reduction in required parking spaces for activities including providing bicycle parking or transit facility/amenities. Grand Rapids (MI), City of. 2008. City Code. Part 2, Title V, Chapter 61, Article 10, Section 5.10.05. Reductions in Parking Requirements. Parking requirements may be reduced up to 50% based on location near transit, parking spaces reserved for alternative vehicles or bicycle, parking in lieu of fees, or shared parking agreements. Gresham (OR), City of. 2008. Development Code. Article IX, Section 9.0853. Exceptions to Minimum Parking Space Standards. Provides parking waivers of 10% for items including bike parking and proximity to light rail stations; for existing uses, allows owner to replace up to 10% of parking spaces with landscaping, pedestrian facilities, or bicycle parking. Milwaukee (WI), City of. 2008. Zoning Ordinance. Subchapter 4, Section 295-403, Subsection 2. Parking Adjustment to Number Required. Number of Parking Spaces. Allows parking reductions for off-site parking, on-street parking, shared parking, public transit proximity. Shared parking required where feasible. Minneapolis (MN), City of. 2009. Code of Ordinances. Title 20. Chapter 541. Article IV. Reducing Off-Street Parking Requirements. Parking reductions provided for shared parking, shared vehicles, proximity to transit, valet parking, and bicycle parking. Salt Lake (UT), City of. 2009. City Code. Title 21A, Section 21A.44.040. Transportation Demand Management. Strategies to encourage nonmotorized transportation and relating parking requirements to the local land use transportations system, including bicycle parking requirements, carpooling incentives, and special minimum and maximum parking for certain districts. Page 3 of 6

EIP-24 Parking Solutions Scottsdale (AZ), City of. 2009. Revised Code. Appendix B, Article IX, Section 9.104. Programs and Incentives to Reduce Parking Requirements. Provides credit for on-street parking, bicycle parking facilities, joint parking improvement projects, shared parking, and downtown overlay district parking program. Seattle (WA), City of. 2009. Land Use Code. Subtitle III, Division 2, Chapter 23.54, Section 23.54.020. Parking Quantity Exceptions. Provides parking exceptions for landmark structures, transit proximity, provision of alternative transportation, shared parking, and carshare vehicle parking. Downtown District Special Parking Requirements Auburn (WA), City of, and Code Publishing. 2009. City Code. Title 18, Section 18.29(H). DUC Downtown Urban Center District Parking Ratios. Exempts smaller retail and restaurant uses from parking requirements; allows for various reductions and in-lieu parking fees. Austin (TX), City of, and American Legal Publishing Corporation. 2009. City Code. Title 25, Chapter 25-6, Article 7, Division 5, Section 25-6-591. Parking Provisions for Development in the Central Business District (CBD) and a Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) Zoning District. Waives off-street parking requirements for uses located in historic structures or uses occupying less than 6,000 SF; reduces general minimum and maximum requirements by 20% and 60%, respectively. Crystal Lake (IL), City of. 2009. Unified Development Ordinance. Section 4-200.5. Off-Street Parking and Loading Parking in the Downtown District. Allows for blanket 30% reduction in required parking spaces as well as in-lieu-of parking fees. San Jose (CA), City of. 2009. Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 20.70, Part 4. Downtown Off-Street Parking Requirements. 15% reduction given for TDM program, 50% reduction for mixed-use projects, exempts additions of smaller size or to historic buildings from additional parking requirements. Scottsdale (AZ), City of. 2009. Revised Code. Appendix B, Article IX, Section 9.108. Special Parking Requirements in Districts Downtown Overlay (DO) District (parking in-lieu only) and Downtown (D) Districts. Provides for parking in-lieu-of fees, FAR bonus for underground and on-site structure parking, and shared parking. Tucson (AZ), City of. Land Use Code. Article 3, Division 3. Section 3.3.6.1. Motor Vehicle and Bicycle Parking Requirements - Exceptions - Downtown Redevelopment District. Exempts certain expansions from additional parking requirements; requires bicycle parking; provides reduction as incentive for public amenity provision. Woodland (CA), City of. 2009. Zoning Ordinance. Article 23, Section 25-23-15. Off Street Parking and Loading Downtown Parking District. Provides for special parking requirements for certain uses, parking waivers, shared parking, in-lieu parking fees, and off-site parking for residential uses. Page 4 of 6

EIP-24 Parking Solutions Green Parking Lot Design Gibbons, Jim. 1999. Parking Lots. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officers (NEMO) Technical Paper Number 5. NEMO (stormwater management best practice education organization) guidelines for sustainable parking lot design. San Mateo [CA] Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. 2009. Design Strategies for Green Streets and Parking Lots. Chapter 2 in San Mateo County Sustainable Green Streets and Parking Lots Design Guidebook. Extremely detailed guidebook for green street and parking lot design and implementation. Provides both site layout and stormwater facility strategies. Toronto (ON), City of, Planning Department. 2007. Design Guidelines. From Design Guidelines for Greening Surface Parking Lots. Council approved draft. Design guidelines for reducing urban heat island effect and reducing stormwater runoff. Permeable Pavement Metropolitan Area Planning Council [Boston]. n.d. Low Impact Development Fact Sheet: Permeable Paving. Massachusetts Low Impact Development Toolkit. Comprehensive overview of permeable paving benefits, concerns, types, and design standards. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. BMP 6.4.1: Pervious Pavement with Infiltration Bed. Pages 7 26 in Pennsylvania Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, Chapter 6, Structural BMPs. Information on, applications of, and technical specifications for porous pavements. Fort Wayne (IN), City of. 2007. Zoning Ordinance. Sections 157.140-144. Off-Street Parking. Use of permeable paving discussed in sections 157.141(F), 157.142(B). Parking reduction incentive given for permeable pavement use. Herndon (VA), Town of. 2009. Town Code. Chapter 78, Article V, Section 78-500.3(k)(4). Parking Alternatives Standards for Alternative Materials. Provides standards for porous parking area surfacing materials use. Nags Head (NC), Town of. 2009. Town Code, Chapter 48, Article V, Sections 48-162, 48-163, 48-168. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. Allows for various porous paving systems for parking and loading areas. Bicycle Parking Durango (CO), City of. 2008. Code of Ordinances. Title 27, Article 10, Section 10-2- 4. Bicycle Parking Spaces. Standards for minimum number and design of bicycle facilities; allows for conversion of existing automobile parking spaces into bicycle spaces. Page 5 of 6

EIP-24 Parking Solutions Gresham (OR), City of. 2008. Development Code. Article IX, Section 9.0830. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. Design standards include location and access, rack types and space dimensions. Folsom (CA), City of. 2008. Municipal Code. Title 17. Chapter 17.57, Section 17.57.090. Bicycle Parking Facilities. Provides requirements for different use districts and brief design standards. Minneapolis (MN), City of. 2009. Code of Ordinances. Title 20. Chapter 541. Article III, Section 541.180. Specific Off-Street Parking Requirements Bicycle Parking. Provides standards for short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces, and sets specific requirements for downtown district developments. Mountain View (CA), City of. 2008. City Code. Chapter 36. Article XII-A, Division A36.37, Section A36.37.100. Bicycle Parking Standards. Standards for class I (long term employee parking) and class II and III (short term parking) bike facilities, and shower/changing room requirements for high-employment businesses. Page 6 of 6

Modern Approaches to Parking Management

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking At the end of World War II, only a small percentage of U.S. cities had zoning ordinance provisions for off-street parking. This percentage increased greatly during the 1950s and 1960s, and eventually to a point where the overwhelming majority of urban and suburban communities require a minimum supply of offstreet parking for new developments. In general terms, public officials have sought to minimize externalities created by development costs not borne by those who are responsible for the development. In particular, off-street parking standards are an attempt to minimize spillover parking on public streets and to ensure safe and efficient movement of traffic by requiring that the supply of parking at the site of the development is adequate to meet demand. Although the link is not always well understood, parking and transportation are inseparable. While the American Public Transit Association (2002) has found that the number of people using public transportation during a typical weekday has increased 20 percent since 1995, motor vehicle use continues to expand. U.S. Department of Transportation (2002) figures verify that the number of registered motor vehicles in the United States has increased much faster than the rate of population growth over the past several decades. At the same time, the average vehicle is being driven 5 Copyright 2002 American Planning Association. Reprinted with permission from Parking Standards, PAS Report No. 510/511.

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking more miles annually. These figures show that Americans have developed a seemingly insatiable appetite for mobility. Of course, vehicles require a place to be stored at the end of each trip. A number of development projects dedicate as much or more land area to parking area than to building area. It s important to recognize that there are a variety of stakeholders in decisions about off-street parking requirements (e.g., developers, business owners and their employees and patrons, community residents, and the general public, all of whom have an interest in mobility and in an attractive physical environment where automobile traffic is not overwhelming and the air is clean to breathe). The amount of parking provided for the range of land uses in a community is an important link between land use, transportation, design, and environmental quality. Not only is thought given to matching the amount of off-street parking required by municipal zoning codes to the actual parking demand, but planners and policy makers increasingly pay attention to the ways in which an excess supply of free or inexpensive parking influences demand and creates externalities. Some studies (Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle 1992; Willson 1992; Willson 1995) indicate that many communities have created parking standards that require developments to build parking spaces far in excess of demand, even given the continuing growth of automobile ownership and use. For example, a Seattle study, 1991 Parking Utilization Study, found that the average parking supply exceeded average demand by 30 percent at 36 office and industrial sites located in noncentral business district suburban locations in the Seattle area. Business owners and land developers must balance the expense of providing off-street parking with their desire to ensure that patrons and employees have easy vehicular access to the site. The amount of parking provided varies widely from one development to the next, even among developments sharing similar characteristics. While some choose to minimize the supply of off-street parking, others oversupply parking to the extent that many spaces are rarely used. Some business owners consider visible excess parking a necessary perk for employees and a welcome mat that makes potential patrons aware that there is no shortage of parking serving the business. In terms of the larger picture, there has been an increasing body of literature during the past decade that examines the relationship between the built environment and transportation choices. The landmark LUTRAQ (Making the Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality Connection) demonstration project (1000 Friends of Oregon 1997) is one example. The project analyzed the differences between conventional suburban development and transit-oriented development scenarios in the western portion of the Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area. The study found that the LUTRAQ scenario, based on transit-oriented development, could result in a variety of transportation demand benefits, including a 4 percent reduction in auto ownership rates and fewer vehicle trips per household each day. Much recent parking literature argues that excessive parking supply discourages alternative modes of transportation, reduces density, increases the cost of development, creates an uninviting built environment, and degrades the natural environment (e.g., by increasing polluted stormwater runoff into area water bodies, increasing air pollution by inducing automobile travel, and contributing to urban heat islands). While benefits may accrue from minimizing the amount of off-street parking, downsizing minimum parking requirements may be a tricky proposition in many communities due to the feared impact on other community objectives. 6

THE BASIS FOR ZONING CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Purpose statements found in municipal zoning codes can provide some guidance regarding the rationale behind off-street parking requirements. However, most simply have statements such as, The provisions of this chapter have been established to ensure that adequate off-street parking is provided to meet the parking needs of uses located within the city. Some codes, such as Pittsburgh s, make a point of mentioning flexibility in the purpose statement of its off-street parking chapter, as follows: Purpose. The purpose of these regulations is to: allow flexibility in addressing vehicle parking, loading, and access issues; present a menu of strategies to solve parking issues rather than parking space requirements; maintain and enhance a safe and efficient transportation system that is consistent with environmental goals and clean air; and ensure that off-street parking, loading, and access demands associated with new development will be met without adversely affecting other nearby land uses and surrounding neighborhoods. (Article 6, Section 9.14.01, amended August 24, 2000) Determining the appropriate amount of off-street parking that should be required by a municipal zoning ordinance, like many aspects of planning, is part art and part science and is done within a political context. When municipal officials write or rewrite their off-street parking provisions, the list of sources consulted is often short and has remained largely the same for years. Many rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for information related to parking demand generated by various land uses. Some zoning codes state that, when an individual land use is not covered in the city s off-street parking chapter, ITE standards apply. Despite the fact that ITE s information may be the most extensive quantitative data readily available for purchase, ITE cautions that much of the information is based on studies conducted in locations where few transportation alternatives exist and/or are based on studies with a very small sample size (ITE 1987). [Editor s note: The Parking Council of ITE had a new version of the trip generation manual in press at the time this PAS Report was in final production. Readers should consult the new manual, which, we are told, is quite different in its approach.] Donald Shoup, chair of the Urban Planning Department at UCLA, has noted that parking demand studies are generally conducted in an environment where off-street parking is provided without a direct fee (i.e., areas outside of downtown, where fees are almost always charged). Using these studies to determine minimum requirements means that such requirements are based on the demand for parking at a price of zero, which leads to a vicious circle of an oversupply of free (but subsidized by somebody) parking virtually everywhere in the metropolitan landscape (Shoup 1999). The most popular method for determining off-street parking requirements may be to borrow from the ordinances of other communities. To a large degree, it s difficult to fault this approach. APA would not be publishing this report if it thought that borrowing standards from other cities or at least having an awareness of the range of standards that exist was an unacceptable approach. When APA s Planning Advisory Service (PAS) receives inquiries related to off-street parking standards, PAS provides subscribers with ordinances, studies, and guides such as this one. Adoption of another jurisdiction s standards, without consideration of local socioeconomic standards, comprehensive plan, political environment, The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 7

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking the input of the citizens for the community, and legal review according to state enabling legislation, among other issues, may result in standards that just do not fit. Further, the most popular standards are often derived from ITE information, the limitations of which are noted above. A number of PAS Reports and other APA publications provide useful discussions of parking standards in some as the central topic (e.g., Off- Street Parking Requirements, PAS Report 432, and Flexible Parking Requirements, PAS Report 377) while in others as an integral issue linked to other popular planning topics (e.g., Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations, PAS Report 468, and The Transportation/Land-Use Connection, PAS Report 448). ITE (1995) has produced a model ordinance for shared parking. In addition to APA and ITE, other available sources of information include model recommendations from the National Parking Association (1992), the Urban Land Institute (1999), and the Eno Foundation (Weant and Levinson 1990). Transportation and parking consultants are sometimes hired to assist in determining parking standards. These consultants often provide analysis of parking issues within a particular geographic subset of a community, such as the downtown or a particularly busy commercial district. Although such studies are usually independent and authoritative, it s important to realize they may include certain assumptions (about expectations related to transit use, for example) not necessarily consistent with a community s long-term vision. Perhaps the most effective way to analyze demand is to get out in the community to look around and record information. When you obtain information about parking occupancy in existing facilities, ask questions about the inevitability (or lack thereof) of similar conditions for future development. In an APA 2001 audio conference, Effective Community Parking Standards, one expert recommended that communities closely examine their off-street parking standards every five to 10 years. OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS RELATED TO DRAFTING OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS The Comprehensive Plan As with any zoning code provision, off-street parking requirements should be consistent with the goals of a community s comprehensive plan. A community might review its comprehensive plan provisions related to transportation, land use, environmental quality, and design when drafting offstreet parking standards to ensure a good fit between requirements and plan objectives. Politics Zoning code provisions are developed within a political context. Elected officials sensitive to complaints about parking problems may be reluctant to revise off-street parking requirements to more closely meet average demand or to meet objectives related to, for example, transit use, air quality, and stormwater management. Advocates for change may need to educate voters about the effect of off-street parking requirements on community character. With public support will come political support. Administration of Regulations Off-street parking requirements can be difficult to administer. To avoid setting expectations that cannot be met, consider the amount of staff and staff time available for administration when drafting the requirements. Also consider the process for calculating flexible parking require- 8

ments (e.g., shared parking determinations, discussed in detail below). If the resources to implement the process are not available, review the process and simplify it to match the resources. Without effective administration and enforcement, regulations can be a political lightning rod and generate litigation. Reuse of Buildings Many codes recognize that requiring different levels of off-street parking for a variety of commercial uses may lead to problems when new uses attempt to move into buildings that were tailored to different commercial uses. For example, a 5,000-square-foot retail building may be constructed to the requirement of one space per 400 square feet of gross floor area, requiring 13 spaces. If a subsequent tenant would like to convert the building to an office use, a parking standard of one space per 300 square feet would result in a requirement of 17 spaces, thus not allowing for office use without securing additional parking or granting a variance. Portland, Oregon, specifically refers to this issue in its code, as follows: Minimum Required Parking Spaces: A. Purpose The purpose of required parking spaces is to provide enough on-site parking to accommodate the majority of traffic generated by the range of uses which might locate at the site over time. Transit-supportive plazas and bicycle parking may be substituted for some required parking on a site to encourage transit use and bicycling by employees and visitors to the site. The required parking numbers correspond to broad use categories, not specific uses, in response to this long-term emphasis. There may be an inherent tension or contradiction between the desire to have off-street parking requirements that closely approximate the parking demand for each individual land use and the desire to ensure that buildings may be easily adapted to house a variety of different uses. ZONING CODE PROVISIONS THAT RESPOND TO AND/OR INFLUENCE PARKING DEMAND What follows is an overview of a range of strategies communities have adopted that go beyond standard minimum parking requirements. Many of these strategies recognize and respond to unique factors associated with different parts of the community in question (e.g., commercial strips, downtown districts). Mixed-Use Development and Shared Parking The overall number of parking spaces serving multiple uses in close proximity to one another may be significantly reduced through shared parking arrangements. Sharing parking allows more efficient use of land compared to providing dedicated parking spaces for each use. Carefully crafted shared parking arrangements between two or more uses can reasonably meet peak demand, particularly in mixed-use areas or on mixed-use or multiple-use sites. The Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2002) notes that shared parking is also most appropriate where: a specific parking problem exists; land values and parking facility costs are high; clustered development is desired; traffic congestion or vehicle pollution are significant problems; and adding pavement is undesirable. The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 9

Shared parking arrangements recognize that various uses have different peak operating hours. A common example is shared parking between restaurant and office uses. The parking lot may be heavily used by office employees and visitors in the daytime, while the restaurant patrons may park in the lot after most weekday office users have left and on weekends. If the restaurant is open during the day, it may benefit from lunch-time use by office employees while generating little additional daytime parking demand. In addition to efficient sharing of parking spaces and reduced development costs, transportation system benefits may result from a reduction in the number of office employees driving off-site for lunch. In determining the amount of parking required for mixed-use or multiuse developments, many zoning codes contain provisions such as the following from Minneapolis: Where there are two or more separate principal uses on the site, the required parking and loading for the site shall be the sum of the required parking and loading for each use, except as otherwise specified in this chapter. Additional provisions, however, allow asof-right parking reductions based on shared parking arrangements. The following procedure is used in Minneapolis to reduce the overall number of spaces for shared parking arrangements. 541.190. Shared Parking... 1. Computation. The number of shared spaces for two (2) or more distinguishable land uses shall be determined by the following procedure: a. Multiply the minimum parking required for each individual use, as set forth in Table 541-1, Specific Off-Street Parking Provisions, by the appropriate percentage indicated in Table 541-2, Shared Parking Calculations, for each of the six (6) designated time periods. b. Add the resulting sums for each of the six (6) columns. c. The minimum parking requirement shall be the highest sum among the six (6) columns resulting from the above calculations. d. Select the time period with the highest total parking requirement and use that total as the shared parking requirement. 2. Other uses. If one (1) or all of the land uses proposing to make use of shared parking facilities do not conform to the general land use classifications in Table 541-2, Shared Parking Calculations, as determined by the zoning administrator, then the applicant shall submit sufficient data to indicate the principal operating hours of the uses. Based upon this information, the zoning administrator shall determine the appropriate shared parking requirement, if any, for such uses. 3. Process. An application for shared parking shall be submitted on a form approved by the zoning administrator, as specified in Chapter 525, Administration and Enforcement. Variations of this format are found in zoning codes in a variety of communities. Table 541-1 is shown below. In addition, I am providing an example of how a shared parking agreement between three uses would be calculated. Those three uses are: 1. a 10,000-square-foot retail building, 2. a 6,000-square-foot office building, and 3. a restaurant with 1,000 square feet of public area. The Minneapolis Zoning Code requires: 1. 20 parking spaces for the retail building, 2. 7 spaces for the office building, and 3. 20 spaces for the restaurant. The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 10

These figures are derived from the Minneapolis code, which outside of the city s downtown area requires one parking space per 300 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 4,000 square feet for retail and office buildings. It also requires parking equal to 30 percent of the capacity of persons in the public area of restaurants, where the capacity of persons is based on the building code allowance of one person per 15 square feet of area. In other words, the code would require that the three uses have a total of 47 parking spaces without a shared parking arrangement. I have not factored in other allowed parking reductions (e.g., providing bicycle parking or an on-site transit shelter). The greatest sum shown in Table 2 is 41, which becomes the overall parking requirement for the three uses. Thus, the shared parking arrangement allows this particular development or combination of developments to The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking TABLE 1. SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS (Table 541-1 from the Minneapolis, Minnesota, code) General Land Use Classification Weekdays Weekends 1:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. Office 5% 100% 5% 0% 15% 0% Retail sales and services 0% 100% 80% 0% 100% 60% Restaurant (not 24 hr) 20% 70% 100% 30% 75% 100% Residential 100% 60% 100% 100% 75% 95% Theater 0% 60% 100% 0% 80% 100% Hotel Guest rooms Restaurant lounge 100% 55% 100% 100% 55% 100% (in hotel) Conference rooms 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 100% Religious institution 0% 25% 50% 0% 100% 50% TABLE 2. THE RESULTS OF SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS General Land Use Classification Weekdays Weekends 1:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. 1:00 a.m. Office 0.35 7 0.35 0 1.05 0 Retail sales and services 0 20 16 0 20 12 Restaurant (not 24 hr) 4 14 20 6 15 20 Total 4 41 36 6 36 32 11

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking provide six fewer parking stalls than would normally be required. The code assumes that, for the combination of these particular uses, the greatest demand for parking will take place between the hours of 7:00a.m. and 6:00p.m. Some municipalities, rather than prescribing a particular formula or table governing shared parking, give discretion to city staff to approve shared parking arrangements based on individual circumstances, parking studies, or estimated peak operating times provided by applicants. Some outline specific criteria that must be met in order to share required parking spaces. Bellevue, Washington, for example, uses these guidelines for uses outside its downtown: Shared Use of Parking. The following provisions apply outside the Downtown Districts: 1. General. The Director of Planning and Community Development may approve shared use of parking facilities located on separate properties if: a. A convenient pedestrian connection between the properties exists; and b. The properties are within 1,000 feet of each other; and c. The availability of parking for all affected properties is indicated by directional signs as permitted by Chapter 22B.10 BCC (Sign Code). 2. Number of Spaces Required. a. Where the uses to be served by shared parking do not overlap their hours of operation, the property owner or owners shall provide parking stalls equal to the greater of the applicable individual parking requirements. b. Where the uses to be served by shared parking have overlapping hours of operation, the property owner or owners shall provide parking stalls equal to the total of the individual parking requirements. If the following criteria are met, that total is reduced by 10 percent: i. The parking areas share a property line; and ii. A vehicular connection between the lots exists; and iii. A convenient, visible pedestrian connection between the lots exists; and iv. The availability of parking for all affected properties is indicated by directional signs, as permitted by Chapter 22B.10 BCC (Sign Code). 3. Documentation Required. Prior to establishing shared use of parking, the property owner or owners shall file with the King County Division of Records and Elections and with the Bellevue City Clerk a written agreement approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development providing for the shared parking use. The agreement shall be recorded on the title records of each affected property. (Bellevue uses somewhat more lenient standards in its downtown.) Keeping track of shared parking arrangements can be an administrative challenge. Informal shared parking arrangements also often exist outside the official regulatory structure, particularly in large, densely populated cities. Where such arrangements are done officially, subsequent changes in land uses frequently will trigger the need for more parking than was provided when a shared parking arrangement was initially approved. Some cities (e.g., Los Angeles, Schaumburg, Illinois, through its transportation demand management ordinance) encourage land banking space for future parking needs when approving a shared parking arrangement in order to accommodate evolving use of the property or properties in question. Al- 12

though this space provides a safety valve to prevent an eventual shortage of parking, such an approach may diminish the benefits associated with the shared parking arrangement by effectively limiting the development potential of the site. If the uses that share parking are not located on the same parcel, the zoning ordinance should contain provisions governing off-site parking (e.g., limitations on the distance between a use and its off-site parking). The distance that off-site parking may be from the use or uses served may vary depending on the type of use or destination in question, pedestrian infrastructure, and the regional climate. Maximum Parking Standards Some communities, in addition to requiring a minimum amount of offstreet parking, limit the amount of parking that may be provided for individual uses. Although this practice has become more widespread during the past decade, maximum standards are not currently found in most zoning codes. Communities that incorporate maximum standards range in size and character. They include San Antonio, Texas; Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky; Gresham, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; and San Francisco, California. And some cities, like those mentioned in the following paragraphs, do not establish set standards. Rather, they create formulas for determining maximums. Parking maximums have been particularly prevalent in the Northwest due in part to state and regional goals or mandates. If the number of communities using such codes is any indication, however, more planners and policy makers nationwide believe that maximum standards are as important as minimum standards if not more so. Shoup (1999b), although not espousing maximum parking standards, suspects that planners will some day look back and see minimum parking requirements as a terrible mistake. He believes minimum requirements are observe, ambiguous, and cumbersome, and impede progress toward important social, economic, and environmental goals. Parking maximums have been used most extensively in downtown areas, but they also can be an effective tool for communities interested in managing stormwater, increasing densities, and meeting transportation demand management objectives throughout the community. Combined with parking minimums, maximum standards create a parking range. Maximum standards generally come in three forms. Some communities, as with typical minimum requirements, set a ratio per number of square feet of building area. Pittsburgh, for example, sets a maximum off-street parking ratio of one space per 175 square feet of retail sales and services, while the city s minimum requirement for such uses is one space per 500 square feet beyond the first 2,400 square feet. (No parking is required for the first 2,400 square feet.) Thus, for a new 5,000-square-foot retail building in Pittsburgh, five off-street parking spaces are required and no more than 29 could be provided a fairly wide range. In Redmond, Washington, the Neighborhood, Retail and General commercial zones are allowed a maximum of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for most uses and a minimum of four per 1,000 square feet. In a 5,000-square-foot building, 20 spaces would be required and the cap would be 25. Redmond is an example of a suburban community that has used maximum requirements effectively. A second method for regulating the maximum number of spaces is to base the maximum on the minimum. For example, the Draft Unified Development Ordinance in Helena, Montana, requires the following: The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 13

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking Maximum Number of Parking Spaces Required. The maximum number of off-street parking spaces for any building or use shall not exceed the amount determined as follows: 1. Parking lots of more than twenty and less than fifty-one spaces. Parking lots may not have more than one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the number of spaces identified in Table 15-C, not including accessible spaces, unless a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the parking area is landscaped in accordance with the standards of this chapter. 2. Parking lots of fifty one spaces or more. No more than one hundred ten percent (110%) of the number of spaces required as identified in Table 15-C of this chapter, not including accessible spaces, are permitted. Based on Helena s minimum parking requirement for retail uses of 4.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, a 5,000-square-foot retail store would be required to provide 21 spaces and could provide no more than 25 spaces (unless 20 percent of the parking lot is landscaped) a very narrow range. (Note that maximum standards of 125 or 150 percent of the minimum are more prevalent and provide a somewhat wider range.) Generally, communities with minimum parking requirements that are set particularly low (i.e., below typical demand) might consider higher maximum standards (e.g., 150 or 200 percent of the minimum) when using this method. A third method is a limit on the overall number of parking spaces in a particular geographic area. Cambridge, Massachusetts, uses parking maximums as part of comprehensive set of strategies to reduce automobile dependence (Millard-Ball 2002). The Cambridge zoning ordinance, for example, states that the total number of parking spaces serving non-residential uses in the North Point Residence District shall not exceed 2,500 spaces, allocated to each lot in the district at a rate of 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of lot area. Cambridge also uses the more popular approach of setting parking maximums for many individual land uses. Some communities offer automatic exceptions to maximum parking standards if certain objectives are met. For example, San Antonio, Texas, which incorporates maximum standards for an extensive number of uses in its zoning code, exempts structured parking and parking located on pervious pavement. The pervious pavement exemption is subject to standards that describe the underlying soil permeability, level of the water table, the slope of the lot, and maintenance of the lot (e.g., sweeping and washing). A note of caution: maximum standards that are set particularly low may result in spillover parking that could erode support for such standards. On-street parking restrictions accompanying maximum standards are one way of dealing with this issue, though such restrictions are also controversial in many places. Resident-only parking restrictions are often both a response to and a source of friction between the wishes of area residents, who like having on-street parking available for themselves and their guests, and businesses and institutions that rely on the ability of their patrons to find places to park. Time will tell whether maximum standards completely replace minimum requirements as concern continues to rise about traffic congestion, low-density development, and the environmental consequences of automobile dependence. Downtown Parking Standards In recent years, a number of communities without a traditional downtown have attempted to create such a place. Parking in downtown areas is complex and subject to a variety of competing interests. For example, the needs of businesses that rely on the availability of short-term parking are sometimes af- 14

fected by commuters who occupy parking spaces from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Constantly adding to the downtown parking supply should not be the sole solution to solving real or perceived downtown parking problems. Doing so, in fact, is likely to work against goals aimed at improving air quality, reducing traffic (or at least reducing the rate of increase of traffic congestion), and increasing transit use. When parking demand in a downtown area increases substantially, there are only a limited number of ways to increase the traffic carrying capacity of downtown streets as well, some of which, such as elimination of on-street parking, are not necessarily desirable. Levinson (1982), as cited by Barr (1997), suggests that a review of downtown parking strategies should begin with consideration of the following points: What are the community development, environmental, and transportation goals for downtown and the surrounding areas? What basic policies underline formation of plans and options? Which range of parking options are meaningful in relation to: existing parking facilities and street systems; downtown development patterns and intensities; origins, destinations and approach routes of parkers; transit service capabilities; and environmental and energy constraints? How can parking serve as a catalyst for desired development? Should parking be provided for all who want to drive downtown, or should it be rationed in some specific manner? What balance should be achieved between parking located on the outskirts of downtown and parking located along express transit stops in outlying areas? What are the effects of parking on the location and design of public transport routes, stations, and terminals? Although this report focuses on zoning requirements, such requirements are only one piece of the downtown parking puzzle (as the above points suggest). Signage, pricing, location, design, supply, metering of on-street parking, and long-term employee parking versus the availability of shortterm parking for retail customers are also issues to be considered. Morrall and Bolger (1996) conducted quantitative research and concluded, The proportion of downtown commuters using public transport is inversely proportional to the ratio of parking stalls per downtown employee. The size of a downtown, the mix and intensity of land uses, and the availability of transportation alternatives and commercial or public parking facilities combine to form a unique environment that many zoning ordinances recognize through particularly low parking requirements and, in some cases, maximum requirements. No minimum off-street parking requirements exist for nonresidential uses in many downtown areas, particularly in large cities (e.g., Portland, Oregon; Boston; Massachusetts; Columbus, Ohio; San Diego, California). The Parking and Access section of the Portland, Oregon, Central City Plan District contains regulations intended to implement the Central City Transportation Management Plan by managing the supply of off-street parking to improve mobility, promote the use of alternative modes, support existing and new economic development, maintain air quality, and enhance the urban form of the Central City. It includes no minimum parking standards for nonresidential uses in the core area of the downtown. Maximum parking requirements for office uses range from 0.7 to 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of new net building area in the core. The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 15

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking Among medium-size downtowns, parking requirements vary widely. In the Central Business District Zone in Grand Rapids, Michigan, (pop. 197,000) parking is required at a rate of one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for nonresidential buildings and hotels. Off-street parking is not required for any building constructed prior to January 1, 1998, however, or for new buildings and cumulative additions to existing buildings with a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or less. CBD Parking Required Automobile Parking Off-street parking space as required herein shall be provided for all buildings and structures and for additions to existing buildings or structures. The number of spaces required for all uses shall be one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for all non-residential buildings and hotels, and one space per dwelling unit for all dwellings. Required Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking shall be provided in conjunction with new automobile parking facilities. Any new facility providing parking for more than fifty (50) automobiles, shall provide bicycle parking at a rate of one bicycle parking space for each forty (40) automobile spaces, with a minimum of six (6) spaces. In lieu of providing bicycle parking within the parking facility, the owner may provide bicycle parking at an alternate location well suited to meet the needs of potential users. Public parking facilities designed to provide remote employee parking on the fringe of the district shall be exempt from this requirement. Madison, Wisconsin (pop. 208,000), and Richmond, Virginia (pop. 198,000), do not have parking requirements in most or all of their downtown districts; they do, however, negotiate all parking needs through a transportation management ordinance. Communities with small downtowns vary widely in their management of downtown parking. Some have chosen to develop parking programs focused on public parking lots that serve the downtown area. In Holland, Michigan, for example, a community with 27,000 residents and a traditional downtown of approximately eight square blocks, All businesses located in the C-3 Central Business District shall be deemed participants in a community parking program and shall be exempt from parking requirements herein specified. For any additional residential use created, additional parking areas shall be provided in accordance with the requirements set forth herein (Section 39 52). Distinctions Based on the Type of Commercial District In addition to special regulations for downtown parking, some communities choose to provide distinct parking requirements based on the type of commercial district rather than delineating citywide requirements for each particular land use. (In some cases communities use overlay districts see below.) The basic premise is that a commercial district serving a particular neighborhood will draw patrons from a relatively small market area, increasing the chances that many will arrive via walking, for example, while districts that allow uses drawing from a regional market may require more parking per square foot of floor area for the same use. Cambridge, Massachusetts, offers an example of differentiating between districts; its regulations provide that the parking requirements vary according to the type, location and intensity of development in the different zoning districts, and to proximity of public transit facilities. For example, the minimum parking requirement for general retail establishments varies from one space per 500 square feet, one space per 700 square feet, and one 16

space per 900 square feet, depending on the type of zoning district. Maximum standards in Cambridge vary by district as well. Portland, Oregon, does not require off-street parking in several of its commercial zoning districts (e.g., Mixed Commercial/Residential zone, Storefront Commercial zone, and the Office Commercial 1 zone). Where parking is required, the city makes distinctions based on the scale of development allowed in the district and, in some cases, the residential density of the surrounding area. There are no minimum parking requirements associated with uses in the Neighborhood Commercial 1 zone, which is intended for small sites in or near dense residential neighborhoods. Offstreet parking is required for uses in the Neighborhood Commercial 2 zone, which is intended for small commercial sites and areas in or near less dense or developing residential neighborhoods. Off-street parking requirements are generally less in the Neighborhood Commercial 2 zone than in another level of commercial activity, the General Commercial zone, which is intended to allow auto-accommodating commercial development in areas already predominantly built in this manner and in most newer commercial areas. The Role of Overlay Districts Overlay districts can be an effective tool for incorporating unique parking requirements that recognize and foster unique characteristics associated with particular areas in a community. Minneapolis has several overlay districts that incorporate special parking requirements. The Pedestrian Oriented Overlay Districts, scattered throughout the city, include maximum parking standards and restrictions on the location of parking facilities. The Downtown Parking Overlay District prohibits new commercial parking lots in the downtown area and limits the size of new accessory surface parking lots to no more than 20 spaces. Greensboro, North Carolina, uses unique parking standards in its East Market Street Pedestrian Scale Overlay District. One purpose of the overlay district is to modify the image of the corridor, moving away from the existing vehicular-oriented thoroughfare to an image which is attractive to pedestrian access and use. The parking regulations in the overlay district include the following: Parking Credits and Exceptions: i. In all areas, on-street parking spaces on the right-of-way between the two side lot lines of the site may be counted to satisfy the minimum offstreet parking requirements. ii. Where parking is available off-site within 400 feet of the front entry to the building, and that parking is owned or controlled under a permanent and recorded parking encumbrance agreement for use by the occupants or employees on the site, said parking may be counted to satisfy the off-street parking requirements. iii. In those portions of the Overlay District with underlying zoning of GB, GO-H and HB and which are occupied as a retail use, all parking located behind the front setback of the building shall be double-counted so that each such parking space behind the front setback shall be counted as if it were two (2) spaces available to satisfy the off-street parking requirements for such retail use. iv. Where it can be demonstrated through a documented parking study that the demand for parking of the combined uses of two (2) or more buildings can be satisfied with the shared and jointly accessible offstreet parking available to those buildings, then a special exception to these parking requirements may be granted by the Board of Adjustment to satisfy the minimum parking requirements. The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 17

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking The Richmond, Virginia, zoning code includes a very extensive description of the rationale underlying its Parking Overlay Districts: Pursuant to the general purposes of this chapter, the intent of Parking Overlay Districts is to provide a means whereby the City Council may establish overlay districts to enable application of appropriate off-street parking requirements to business uses located within areas of the City characterized by a densely developed pedestrian shopping environment in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. The districts are intended to recognize that, due to several factors, business uses located in such areas typically generate lower demands for privately maintained off-street parking spaces than are reflected in the requirements generally applicable in the City and set forth in Section 32-710.1 of this chapter. Parking requirements within Parking Overlay Districts are designed to reflect the factors that result in lower parking demand in such areas. These include: a function similar to that of a shopping center, resulting in a high proportion of multipurpose trips by patrons; considerable walk-in trade due to proximity to residential areas and employment centers; significant numbers of employees that walk to work due to proximity to living areas; availability of public transportation; and many older buildings which have been adapted from other uses and tend to be less efficient than newer special purpose buildings. It is also intended that each Parking Overlay District reflect the supply of public parking spaces within the district by providing for further reduction in the parking requirements in direct proportion to available public parking. Parking Overlay Districts are intended to complement the UB Urban Business District and to be applied principally to those areas within such district which possess the factors enumerated above, but may also be applied independent of the UB District to other areas where such factors exist within other specified districts. Bicycle Parking A number of communities recognize how bicycle travel can reduce vehicular parking demand. Overall, less than 1 percent of all trips in the U.S. are bicycle trips. Since 48 percent of all trips in the U.S. are shorter than three miles, many believe the potential for increasing utilitarian bicycle travel is great (Pucher and Schimek 1999). The extent to which bicycle travel can substitute for automobile travel may depend on demographics, climate, and the availability of the infrastructure to accommodate bicycle use, including bicycle parking. U.S. communities that have the highest level of bicycle use tend to be midsize cities with a large student population, such as Gainesville, Florida; Madison, Wisconsin; Boulder, Colorado; and Davis, California. The presence of a major university need not be a prerequisite to making a serious effort to encourage bicycle travel as a legitimate form of daily transportation. PAS Report 459, Bicycle Facility Planning (Pinsoff and Musser 1995), covered a wide range of bicycle infrastructure and regulation issues. The report included the following general guide that suggested minimum bicycle requirements for a variety of uses. A number of communities have chosen to institute minimum bicycle parking requirements, while some also allow for a reduction in the number of required automobile spaces when bicycle parking is provided. (See Table 3.) In Davis, California, considered by many to be the preeminent bicycling community in the U.S., the number and location of all bicycle parking spaces shall be in accordance with the community development director 18

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking TABLE 3. BICYCLE PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS Type of Establishment Minimum Number of Bicycle Parking Spaces Primary or Secondary School 10% of the number of students, plus 3% of the number of employees College or University Classrooms Dorms, Fraternities, and Sororities Shopping Mall Commercial Street Sport and Recreational Center Office Building Government Building Movie Theater or Restaurant Manufacturing Plant Multi-Unit Housing Public Transit Station Other Land Uses 6% of the number of students, plus 3% of the number of employees 1 space per 3 students 5% of the number of automobile spaces 1 space per 3,000 sq. ft. of commercial space 12% of the number of automobile spaces 10% of the number of automobile spaces 10% of the number of automobile spaces 5-10% of the number of automobile spaces 4% of the number of automobile spaces 1 space per 2 apartments 20 spaces minimum 5-10% of the number of automobile spaces General Notes: A minimum of 2 spaces are required for all new qualifying developments. After the first 50 spaces are provided, parking requirements shall be reduced by half. Source: Pinsoff and Musser (1995). TABLE 4. A SAMPLE OF BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS City Cambridge, Massachusetts Iowa City, Iowa Grand Rapids, Michigan Santa Cruz, California Bicycle parking required One space for every 10 automobile spaces for most uses. In multifamily residential buildings, one space or locker must be provided for each unit. For every seven (7) bicycle parking spaces required for commercial uses the required number of off-street parking spaces for other vehicles may be reduced by one (1) space, up to a maximum of two (2) spaces if those spaces are used for bicycle parking. In the city s downtown, one bicycle parking space must be provided for every 40 automobile spaces, with a minimum of six bicycle spaces, in conjunction with any parking facility with more than 50 automobile spaces. a. Commercial; Industrial, Office, Retail, Service: 2 +15% of auto parking requirement b. Multi-Family Residential (3 or more units): 1 space per unit c. Public, or Commercial Recreation: 35% of auto parking d. Schools: 1 space per 3 students e. Park and Ride Lots and Transit Centers: 35% of auto parking f. Lodging: 1 space per 5 units 19

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking or his/her designee (California Air Resources Board 1998). Multifamily residential buildings are required to provide two bicycle spaces per dwelling unit. The city has an extensive network of bike routes and other bicycle infrastructure. Table 4 offers a small sample of bicycle parking requirements from communities in different regions of the country. Many of the ordinances include design and location standards for required bicycle parking that dictate, for example, bicycle rack styles, a minimum distance from building walls, and visibility and accessibility of the parking. Transit Allowances Offering off-street parking reductions based on proximity to public transportation is an increasingly popular approach. These reductions may serve to encourage transit ridership and, more generally, development in corridors or nodes that are well served by bus or rail. (Reduced parking requirements related to superior transit access are inherent in some of the other code provisions discussed in this chapter, such as reduced parking requirements in downtown areas.) Minneapolis allows a 10 percent parking reduction for multifamily residential dwellings if the proposed use is located within 300 feet of a transit stop with midday service headways of 30 minutes or less in each direction. For all other uses, the minimum parking requirement may be reduced 10 percent if the use provides an adequate sheltered transit stop within the development, as determined by the city engineer. Transit stops are one of the off-street parking reduction alternatives allowed in the Pittsburgh zoning code: Transit Stops The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall be authorized, in accordance with the Special Exception provisions of Sec. 922.07, to permit the incorporation of transit stops as a means of satisfying the otherwise applicable offstreet parking standards, provided the following conditions are met: 1. The transit stop shall be designed to be a station or waiting area for transit riders, clearly identified as such, and open to the public at large; 2. The transit stop shall be designed as an integral part of the development project, with direct access to the station or waiting area from the development site; 3. The transit waiting area or platform shall be designed to accommodate passengers in a covered waiting area, with seating for a minimum of 20 persons, shall include internal lighting, and shall include other features which encourage the use of the facility, such as temperature control within the waiting area or the inclusion of food vendors; 4. The maximum reduction in the number of parking spaces shall be no more than 20 percent of the total required spaces; 5. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall request a report and recommendation from the Planning Director on the planning aspects, and the potential impacts of the proposed reduction in parking through the provision of a transit facility; 6. The transit stop shall be maintained by the developer for the life of the development project. Communities with Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinances often incorporate transit access in the ordinance as a way to justify parking reductions and/or limit a development s impact on the city and 20

regional transportation infrastructure. Such ordinances may also cover bicycle parking, preferential carpool parking, pricing incentives for parking, employer subsidies of employee transit passes, and on-site access for employees to transit passes and schedules. For a thorough examination of TDM in theory and practice, see PAS Report Number 477, Transportation Demand Management. Residential Parking Requirements The amount of parking required for residential uses is, almost without exception, expressed as a ratio related to the number of dwelling units. Requirements typically range from one to two required spaces per unit. Some communities make distinctions based on whether the dwelling is in a multior single-family building. Others make further distinctions based on the number of bedrooms in multifamily units, the location of the units in the community, or whether the units serve senior, low-income, or other special populations that are less likely to own automobiles. In Jefferson County, Kentucky, for example, single-family dwellings and duplexes must provide one parking space per dwelling unit. While multifamily dwellings located in the Traditional Neighborhood and Traditional Marketplace Corridor Form Districts must also provide one space per dwelling unit, multifamily dwellings elsewhere must provide 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit. Senior citizen or retirement facilities have a lower requirement of one space for every two dwelling units and one space for every two employees on maximum shift. As regards residential parking requirements overall, Litman (1999) notes that communities should be mindful of the impact standards may have on housing affordability; specifically, he says planners can play a role in encouraging developers to unbundle the cost of housing from the cost of parking sot hat those who use residential parking spaces are the people who pay for it. A Note about Variances A majority of communities allow parking reductions through a variance process. Although there are advantages to examining parking requirements on a case-by-case basis, doing so may result in inconsistency from one project to the next. And for communities that act by the book on variances, reducing parking requirements may be a stretch given that many codes, based on state enabling legislation, require that variances must be based on factors unique to the characteristics of a particular parcel, rather than a blanket juridictional charge. SUMMARY A community s parking policies and regulations have a great deal of influence on how that community will evolve over time. This chapter has covered the requirements and rationale related to off-street parking in a sample of communities varying in size and regional location. The body of this PAS Report presents the requirements of many communities that have dealt with the complex issues outlined above. The off-street parking puzzle includes a wide range of additional pieces not addressed in this chapter, including fees in lieu of parking (Shoup 1999a), parking cash-out policies (Kodama et al. 1996), federal policies on off-street parking (FTA 2002), size and stall dimensions (NPA 1992), and adaptive reuse of that do not conform with current parking requirements (Beaumont 1993). The relationship between land use and transportation is becoming increasingly complicated at the city, regional, and national levels with many communities facing high land values, the high cost of transportation infrastructure, and the heavy use of such infrastructure. Those communities that look for in- The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking 21

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking novative ways to manage off-street parking a key link between land use and transportation may be best prepared to tackle these problems. LIST OF REFERENCES American Public Transit Association. 2002. Number of People Using Public Transportation. (www.apta.com/stats/ridership/people.htm). Barr, M. 1997. Downtown Parking Made Easy. New York: Downtown Research & Development Center. Beaumont, C. 1993. Flexible Parking Codes for Older Downtowns. Planning Advisory Service Memo. November. California Air Resources Board. 1998. Improving California Air Quality, Through Increased Bicycling Fact Sheet (www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/bicycle/factsht.htm). FTA (Federal Transit Administration), U.S. Department of Transportation. 2002. Getting Started with Commuter Choice America s Way to Work, A Checklist. (www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/cc/gs.htm) ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers). 1987. Parking Generation. 2d ed. Washington, D.C.. 1995. Shared Parking Planning Guidelines. Washington, D.C. Kodama, M., et al. 1996. Using Demand-Based Parking Strategies to Meet Community Goals. Monograph prepared for Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Committee under the AB 2766 Program, Los Angeles. Levinson, H. 1982. Parking in a Changing Time. Urban Transportation Perspectives and Prospects. Westport, Conn.: The Eno Foundation. Litman, T. 1999. Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. (www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf). Millard-Ball, A. 2002. Putting on Their Parking Caps. Planning, April, 16-21. Morrall, J. and Dan Bolger. 1996. The Relationship Between Downtown Parking Supply and Transit Use. ITE Journal, February, 32-36. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1992. 1991 Parking Utilization Study. June. NPA (National Parking Association), Parking Consultants Council. 1992. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Provisions for Parking and Loading Spaces. Washington, D.C.: National Parking Association. May. 1000 Friends of Oregon. 1997. Making the Land Use, Transportation Air Quality Connection, Vol. 8 Making the Connections: Technical Report. Portland, Ore.: 1000 Friends of Oregon. March. Pinsoff, Suzan Anderson, and Terri Musser. 1995. Bicycle Facility Planning. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 459. Chicago: APA. Pucher, J., C. Komanoff, C. and P. Schimek. Bicycling Renaissance in North America? Recent Trends and Alternative Policies to Promote Bicycling. 1999. Transportation Research Part A, 33, no. 7/8: 625-54 (www.policy.rutgers.edu/papers/11.pdf). Shoup, Donald C. 1999a. In Lieu of Required Parking. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18, no. 4 (Summer): 307-20. Shoup, D. 1999. The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements. Transportation Research Record, Part A, 33, no. 7/8: 549-74. Urban Land Institute. 1999. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Second Edition. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2002. Talbe 1-9: Number of U.S. Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other Conveyances. (www.bts.gov/publications/nts/html/ table_01_09.html). 22

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Parking Alternatives: Making Way for Urban Infill and Brownfield Development. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. December. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2002. TDM Encyclopedia (www.vtpi.org/ tdm20.htm). Weant, R. and H. Levinson, H. 1990. Parking. Westport, Conn.: The Eno Foundation. Willson, R. 1992. Suburban Parking Econcomics and Policy: Case Studies of Office Worksites in Southern California. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. September.. 1995. Suburban Parking Requirements: A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl. Journal of the American Planning Association 61, no. 1: 129-42. Washington State Department of Transportation. 1999. Local Government Parking Policy and Commute Trip Reduction. Olympai, Wash.: Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.ws.gov/tdm/triproduction (parking_policy.cfm). ORDINANCES CONSULTED n Bellevue, Washington Source: Bellevue Land Use Code, Title 20; September 25, 1978 Shared parking standards, Section 20.20.590(I) n Cambridge, Massachusetts Source: Cambridge Zoning Ordinance; September 8, 1969 Maximum number of parking spaces in the North Point Residence District; Article 16, Section 16.51.21. Off-street parking requirements; Section 6.36 n Davis, California Source: Davis Zoning Code, Chapter 40; no date Off-street parking requirements, including bicycle parking; Section 40.14.090 n Grand Rapids, Michigan Source: Grand Rapids Zoning Code, Title 5; August 24, 1999 C3 Central Business District Zone, automobile and bicycle parking; Section 5.167 n Greensboro, North Carolina Source: Greensboro Unified Development Ordinance; July 1, 1992 Regulations of the East Market Street Pedestrian Scale Overlay District Established; Section 30-4-4.7(C) n Helena, Montana Source: Helena Draft Unified Development Ordinance; November 2001 Maximum number of parking spaces; Section 11-15-08 n Holland, Michigan Source: Holland Zoning Code, Chapter 39; March 1, 2000 Parking in the C-3 Central Business District; Section 39-52 n Iowa City, Iowa Source: Iowa City Zoning Code; December 19, 1995 Off-street parking requirements, including bicycle parking; Section 14-6N-1 n Minneapolis, Minnesota Source: Minneapolis Zoning Code, Title 20; November 12, 1999 Shared parking standards; Section 541.190 Parking regulations in the Pedestrian Oriented Overlay District; Section 551.140 Parking limitations in the Downtown Parking Overlay District; Section 551.740 and Section 551.760 23

The Dynamics of Off-Street Parking n Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Source: Pittsburgh Zoning Code, Chapter 914; August 24, 2000 Purpose statement of off-street parking, loading, and access chapter; Section 914.01.A. Off-street parking requirements; Section 914.02.A Schedule A Special exceptions to off-street parking requirements; Section 914.07.G.2 n Portland, Oregon Source: Portland Planning Code, Chapter 33; July 1, 2002 Purpose statement of off-street parking and loading chapter; Section 33.266.110 Parking in the Central City Plan District; Section 33.510.261 Off-street parking requirements; Section 33.266.110 n Redmond, Washington Source: Redmond Community Development Guide; November 15, 2001 Off-street parking requirements; Section 20D.130 n Richmond, Virginia Source: Richmond Zoning Code; June 25, 1990 Intent of the Parking Overlay Districts; Section 32-900.1 n San Antonio, Texas Source: San Antonio Unified Development Code; May 3, 2001 Exceptions to maximum parking requirements; Section 35-526(b)(5) and Section 35-526(I) n Santa Cruz, California Source: Santa Cruz Zoning Code; Title 24; January 29, 1985 Bicycle parking requirements; Section 24.12.250 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES Bergman, D., ed. 1991. Off-Street Parking Requirements. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 432. Chicago: APA. Ferguson, E. 1998. Transportation Demand Management. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 477. Chicago: APA. Morris, M., ed. 1996. Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 468. Chicago: APA. Shoup, D. 1995. An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements. Journal of the American Planning Association 61, No. 1: 14-28. Smith, T. 1983. Flexible Parking Requirements. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 377. Chicago: APA. Wittenberg. J. 1998. Rethinking Parking Policies and Regulations. Planning Advisory Service Memo, August. 24

Parking Management Best Practices: Making Efficient Use of Parking Resources By Todd Litman Until recently, most planners assumed that as much as possible parking should be abundant and free. Planning focused primarily on maximizing supply by applying generous minimum requirements and public subsidies of parking facilities. But there is growing realization that this approach can be harmful and that alternative management solutions are often better overall. Transportation professionals are now thinking about vehicle parking problems and evaluating solutions in new ways. Parking management refers to policies and programs that result in more efficient use of parking resources. There are more than two dozen parking management strategies that, when appropriately applied, can significantly reduce the parking supply required in a particular situation and provide other economic, social, and environmental benefits, as summarized in the Parking Management Benefits sidebar. When all impacts are considered, improved management is often the best solution to parking problems. This article describes how to adjust parking planning practices to take advantage of management solutions. It is part of efforts by researchers and professional organizations to develop parking management guidance and evaluation tools. How Much Is Optimal? Parking management changes the way we determine optimal parking supply. Most parking supply decisions are currently based on recommended minimum standards published by professional organizations such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The current standards tend to be economically excessive. To appreciate why, it is helpful to know a little about how these standards are developed. They are based on parking demand surveys, most of which were performed in automobile-dependent locations. They reflect an 85th percentile curve, which means that only 15 out of 100 sites will be fully occupied even during peak periods. Peak period is based on the 10th to 20th design hour, which refers to the number of annual hours that demand is allowed to exceed supply at a particular location. A parking facility is considered full if it has 85 to 90 percent occupancy. These assumptions ensure that most parking facilities seldom or never fill. The standards tend to be excessive where parking is shared or priced; if overflow parking is available nearby; in areas with multimodal transport systems; where land costs are high; and where management programs are implemented. This process is said to measure parking demand, but demand is actually a function: the quantity of a good that consumers would purchase at a given price. Most parking surveys are performed where parking is free, which is equivalent to asking how much food a store can give away. To truly measure demand, the analysis must determine how much parking would be used under various prices and conditions. For example, rather Parking Management Benefits Facility cost savings. Reduces costs to governments, businesses, developers, and consumers. Improved quality of service. Many strategies improve user quality of service by providing better information, increasing user options, reducing congestion, and creating more attractive facilities. More flexible facility location and design. Parking management gives architects, designers, and planners more ways to address parking requirements. Revenue generation. Some management strategies generate revenues that can fund parking facilities, transportation improvements, or other important projects. Reduces land consumption. Parking management can reduce land requirements and so helps to preserve green space and other valuable ecological, historic, and cultural resources. Supports mobility management. Parking management is an important component of efforts to encourage more efficient transportation patterns, which helps reduce problems such as traffic congestion, roadway costs, pollution emissions, energy consumption, and traffic accidents. Supports smart growth. Parking management helps create more accessible and efficient land-use patterns and supports other land-use planning objectives. Improved walkability. By allowing clustered development and buildings located closer to sidewalks and streets, parking management helps create more walkable communities. Supports transit. Parking management supports transit oriented development and transit use. Reduced stormwater management costs; less water pollution and heat island effects. Parking management can reduce stormwater flow, water pollution, and solar heat gain. Supports equity objectives. Management strategies can reduce the need for parking subsidies and improve travel options for nondrivers. More livable communities. Parking management can help create more attractive urban environments. than saying, This site requires 100 parking spaces, a planner could say, This site requires 100 spaces if they are free, 80 spaces if priced at $2 per day, 60 spaces if priced at $5 per day, and 50 spaces if priced at $5 per day and a commute trip reduction program is implemented. Most areas have economically excessive parking supply. For example, a parking demand study of Southern California suburban offices found that conventional standards are nearly twice as high as Copyright 2009 American Planning Association. Reprinted with permission. zoningpractice 6.09 AmericaN Planning Association page 2

Parking Management Best Practices Ask the Author Join us online! Go online from July 20 to 31 to participate in our Ask the Author forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. Todd Litman will be available to answer questions about this article. Go to the Zoning Practice page www. planning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the article using the e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice will post the answers cumulatively for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice webpages. About the Author Todd Litman is founder and executive director of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, an independent research organization dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transport problems.. needed. A University of Iowa study found that parking supply exceeded peak-period demand by 16 to 63 percent at various commercial centers. Parking surveys in 26 Seattle neighborhoods found that most had only 40 to 70 percent peak-period occupancy. In Minnesota, peakperiod parking supply at several St. Paul-area shopping centers exceeded occupancy by an average of 31 percent; planners recommended reducing municipal parking requirements to about half of conventional standards. These survey results are particularly dramatic because many of these sites have less parking than current standards require; none have parking management programs, which can typically reduce parking requirements by 20 to 40 percent. There are better ways to determine parking supply. Efficiency-based standards size facilities for optimal use which means that the parking spaces are frequently full, provided that users have information on travel and parking options and that overflow parking is available nearby. Efficiency-based standards take into account geographic, demographic, and economic factors that affect parking demand. Where possible, parking is priced based on economic efficiency criteria. Table 1 summarizes parking demand adjustment factors. Optimal parking supply is typically 20 to 50 percent lower than what conventional standards require, and even more over the long term if more efficient parking practices lead to additional diverse transport systems and more accessible land-use patterns. Because it is impossible to predict future demand precisely, efficiency-based standards apply contingencybased planning, which means that planners identify solutions that can be deployed if needed in the future. For example, if a building is predicted to need 60 to 100 parking spaces, the conventional approach is to supply either a middle (80 spaces) or maximum value (100 spaces). With contingency-based planning, the lowerbound value (60 spaces) is initially supplied, with a plan that identifies solutions to be implemented if needed. This gives decision makers confidence that any future problems will be solved. Table 1. Parking Demand Adjustment Factors (This table summarizes various factors that affect parking demand and parking requirements) Factor Description typical Adjustments Geographic Location Residential Density Employment Density Land-use Mix Transit Accessibility Car-sharing Walkability Housing Tenure Pricing Unbundling Parking Parking and Mobility Management Contingency Plan Vehicle ownership and use rates in an area Number of residents or housing units per acre/hectare Number of employees per acre Range of land uses located within convenient walking distance Nearby transit service frequency and quality Whether a car-sharing service is located nearby Walking environment quality Whether housing is owned or rented Parking that is priced, unbundled, or cashed out Parking sold or rented separately from building space Parking and mobility management programs are implemented at a site Use lower bound requirements if a contingency plan exists Parking Management Strategies Table 2 summarizes potential parking management strategies and their typical range of effectiveness at reducing the parking supply needed in a particular situation. Not every strategy is appropriate in every Adjust parking requirements to reflect variations identified in census and travel survey data. Reduce requirements 1% for each resident per acre: Reduce requirements 15% where there are 15 residents per acre, and 30% if there are 30 residents per acre. Reduce requirements 10 15% in areas with 50 or more employees per gross acre. Reduce requirements 5 10% in mixed use developments and more with shared parking. Reduce requirements 10% for housing and employment within 0.25 mile of frequent bus service and 20% for housing and employment within 0.25 mile of a rail transit station. Reduce residential requirements 5 10% if a car-sharing service is located nearby, or reduce 4 8 parking spaces for each carshare vehicle in a residential building. Reduce requirements 5 15% in walkable communities, and more if walkability allows more shared and off-site parking. Reduce requirements 20 40% for rental versus owner occupied housing. Reduce requirements 10 30% for costrecovery pricing (i.e., parking priced to pay the full cost of parking facilities). Unbundling parking typically reduces vehicle ownership and parking demand 10 20% Reduce requirements 10 40% at worksites with effective parking and mobility management programs. Reduce requirements 10 30%, and more if a comprehensive parking management program is implemented. Source: From Donald Shoup (1995), An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995. situation: Actual impacts vary depending on geographic and demographic factors, how a strategy is implemented, and other factors. Below are some general guidelines. Impacts are higher where there are more parking and travel options. For example, parkzoningpractice 6.09 AmericaN Planning Association page 3

Parking Management Best Practices Table 2. Parking Management Strategies (This table summarizes potential parking management strategies. It indicates the typical reduction in the amount of parking required at a destination, and whether a strategy helps reduce vehicle traffic, thereby also providing congestion, accident, and pollution-reduction benefits.) typical Traffic Strategy Description reduction Reduction Shared Parking Parking spaces serve multiple users and destinations 10 30% Parking Regulations More Accurate and Flexible Standards Favor higher value uses such as service vehicles, deliveries, customers, quick errands, and people with special needs Adjust parking standards to more accurately reflect demand in a particular situation 10 30% 10 30% Parking Maximums Establish maximum parking standards 10 30% Remote Parking Provides off-site or urban fringe parking facilities 10 30% Smart Growth Walking and Cycling Improvements Increased Capacity of Existing Facilities Mobility Management Parking Pricing Improved Pricing Methods Encourages more compact, mixed, multimodal landuse development Improve walking and cycling conditions to expand the range of destinations serviced by a parking facility Increases parking supply by using otherwise wasted space, smaller stalls, car stackers, and valet parking Encourages more efficient travel patterns, including changes in mode, timing, destination, and vehicle trip frequency Charges motorists directly and efficiently for using parking facilities Uses better charging techniques to make pricing more convenient and cost-effective 10 30% 5 15% 5 15% 10 30% 10 30% Varies Financial Incentives Provide financial incentives to shift modes 10 30% Unbundled Parking Parking Tax Reform Rent or sell parking facilities separately from building space Change tax policies to support parking management objectives 10 30% 5 15% Bicycle Facilities Provide bicycle storage and changing facilities 5 15% Improved User Information Improved Enforcement Transportation Management Associations Overflow Plans Address Spillover Problems Parking Facility Design and Operation Provides convenient and accurate information on parking availability and price Ensures that parking regulation enforcement is efficient, considerate, and fair Establish member-controlled organizations that provide transport and parking management services in a particular area Establish plans to manage occasional peak parking demands Use management, enforcement, and pricing to address spillover problems Improve parking facility design and operations to help solve problems and support parking management 5 15% Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Source: From Donald Shoup (1995), An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995. Evaluating multiple strategies Planners should take special care when predicting the impacts of a program that includes multiple parking management strategies. Some impacts overlap, while others have synergistic effects and become more effective if implemented together. For example, transportation management associations (TMAs) provide an institutional framework for implementing strategies that directly affect parking requirements. While it would be true to say that a TMA can reduce parking requirements by 10 to 30 percent, it would be incorrect to add the demand reductions of the TMA to the impacts of the individual strategies it helps implement. Here is an illustration. Without a TMA, parking sharing, pricing, and mobility management strategies may each reduce parking requirements by 10 percent, but with a TMA they become more effective, providing reductions of 15 percent. Table 3 illustrates the incremental gain that can be attributed to the TMA due to the increase in the effectiveness of other strategies. In this example, the TMA causes an additional 12 percent reduction in parking requirements by enhancing the effects of other management strategies. Total impacts are multiplicative, not additive. Shared parking reduces parking requirements by 10 percent, to 90 percent of the original level. The 10 percent reduction due to the parking pricing strategy reduces this further to 81 percent of the original level, and another 10 percent reduction from mobility management results in 73 percent of the original level. This results in a 27 percent reduction, somewhat less than the 30 percent reduction that might be expected if the total were calculated by adding three 10 percent reductions. Examples of Successful Parking Management Programs Downtown Pasadena, California, redevelopment. During the 1970s, Old Pasadena s downtown had become run-down, with many derelict and abandoned buildings and few customers partly because of limited parking for customers. Curb parking was restricted to two hours, but many ing pricing will have greater demand-reduction impacts if implemented in conjunction with improvements in rideshare and public transit services. Financial incentives tend to have greater impacts on lower income consumers. Some strategies are complementary. For example, shared parking becomes more effective if implemented with suitable regulations, pricing, and walkability improvements. Impacts generally increase as programs mature. Table 3. TMA Parking Requirement Reductions (This table shows how a transportation management association can reduce parking requirements by helping to implement specific management strategies) without TMa with TMA Reduction (percentage) (percentage) (percentage) Shared Parking 10 15 5 Parking Pricing 10 15 5 Mobility Management 10 15 5 Total Impacts 100%-(90% x 90%) = 27% 100%-(85% x 85%) = 39% 12 Source: From Donald Shoup (1995), An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995. zoningpractice 6.09 AmericaN Planning Association page 4

Parking Management Best Practices employees simply parked in the most convenient, on-street spaces and moved their vehicles several times each day. The city proposed charging for on-street parking as a way to increase turnover and make parking available to customers. Many local merchants originally opposed the idea. As a compromise, city officials agreed to dedicate all revenues to public improvements that made the downtown more attractive. A parking meter zone (PMZ) was established, and revenues from parking were invested in the downtown. This approach of linking parking revenues directly to added public services and keeping the money under local control helped guarantee the program s success. With this proviso, the merchants agreed to the proposal. They began to see parking meters as a way to fund the projects and services that directly benefit their customers and businesses. The city formed a PMZ advisory board consisting of business and property owners to recommend parking policies and set spending priorities for the meter revenues. Investments included new street furniture and trees, more police patrols, better street lighting, more street and sidewalk cleaning, pedestrian improvements, and marketing (including maps showing local attractions and parking facilities). This created a virtuous cycle in which parking revenue funded community improvements that attracted more visitors; this in turn increased parking revenue and allowed further improvements. Extensive redevelopment, new businesses, and residential development followed. Parking is no longer a problem for customers, who can almost always find a convenient space. Local sales tax revenues have increased far faster than in other shopping districts with lower parking rates or in nearby malls that offer free customer parking. This indicates that charging market rate for parking (i.e., prices that result in 85 to 90 percent peak-period utilization rates) with revenues dedicated to local improvements can be an effective way to support urban redevelopment. Tri-Met Parking Management. The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, which manages transportation in the Portland, Oregon, area, has implemented various parking management strategies around transit stations to minimize costs and support transit-oriented development. These include: sharing parking with Park & Ride and other types of land uses, including apartments, churches, movie theaters, and government buildings near transit stations; using lower minimum parking requirements around transit stations; and allowing Park & Ride capacity near transit stations to be reduced if the land is used for transit-oriented development, thus allowing walk/bike trips to replace car trips. More accurate parking requirements. Vancouver, British Columbia, is developing a more flexible approach to parking requirements for multifamily dwellings to support efficient transportation, smart growth, and affordable housing planning objectives. City staff proposed a Sustainable Transportation Credit Program that allows developers more flexibility based on their specific location and circumstances. The program is loosely based on the LEED green building rating system. Developers receive credits for reducing the number of parking stalls, providing parking spaces for car-share vehicles, and providing annual transit passes to building occupants. Rich Sorro Commons, San Francisco. Rich Sorro Commons is a mixed use project with 100 affordable units and approximately 10,000 square feet resources Aspen, City of (www.aspenpitkin.com). Austin, City of (2006). Parking Benefit District (www.ci.austin.tx.us/parkingdistrict/default.htm). CORDIS (1999 2002). Parking Policy Measures and the Effects on Mobility and the Economy, Cost-Transport, CORDIS (www.cordis.lu). Davidson, Michael, and Fay Dolnick (2002). Parking Standards, Planning Advisory Service Report 510/511, American Planning Association (www. planning.org). Institute for Transportation Engineering (2004). Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org). Isler, Elizabeth E., Lester A. Hoel, and Michael D. Fontaine (2005). Innovative Parking Management Strategies for Universities: Accommodating Multiple Objectives in a Constrained Environment, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org). Kolozsvari, Douglas, and Donald Shoup (2003). Turning Small Change Into Big Changes, Access 23, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Fall 2003, 2 7; www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/ SmallChange.pdf. Kuzmyak, J. Richard, Rachel Weinberger, Richard H. Pratt, and Herbert S. Levinson (2003). Parking Management and Supply, Chapter 18, Report 95, Transit Cooperative Research Program; Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org). Litman, Todd (2006). Parking Costs, Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org). (2006). Parking Management Best Practices, APA Planners Press (www. planning.org). A summary of this book is available as Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation and Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf), 2006. (2005). Land Use Impacts on Transportation, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org). Marsden, Greg (2006). The Evidence Base for Parking Policies A Review, Transport Policy, Vol. 13, No. 6 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol), November 2006, 447 457. Oregon Downtown Development Association (2001). Parking Management Made Easy: A Guide to Taming the Downtown Parking Beast, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon Department of Transportation and Department of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state. or.us/tgm/publications.htm). Seattle, City of (2000). Comprehensive Neighborhood Parking Study, City of Seattle (www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/pdf/cnps.pdf). Shaw, John (1997). Planning for Parking, Public Policy Center, University of Iowa (www.uiowa.edu). Shoup, Donald (2005). The High Cost of Free Parking, APA Planners Press (www.planning.org). (2005). Parking Cash Out, Report 532, Planning Advisory Service, American Planning Association (www.planning.org/pas). (1999). The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements, Transportation Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov. 1999, 549 574; available at www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf. (1995). An Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995, 14 28. Transit for Livable Communities (2003). The Myth of Free Parking, Transit for Livable Communities (www.tlcminnesota.org). TriMet (2005). Community Building Sourcebook, TriMet (www.trimet.org/pdfs/ publications/community_sourcebook05.pdf). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006). Parking Spaces/Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm). Willson, Richard (1995). Suburban Parking Requirements; A Tacit Policy for Automobile Use and Sprawl, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 61, No. 1, Winter 1995, 29 42. zoningpractice 6.09 AmericaN Planning Association page 5

Parking Management Best Practices of ground-floor retail. Conventional standards would normally require 130 to 190 parking spaces for such a building, but it was constructed with only 85 spaces because of its proximity to highquality public transit services, two car-share parking spaces in the building, and the fact that the building provides affordable housing for tenants who are unlikely to own a car. The reduced parking supply freed up space for a child care center and more ground-level retail stores. Avoiding the need to provide just 17 fewer parking spaces allows the project to generate $132,000 in additional annual revenues (300 square feet per space at $25.80 per square foot in rent), making housing more affordable. The two car-share vehicles give residents access to a car without the costs of ownership a particularly important benefit for low-income households. Aspen, Colorado. Aspen experienced growing parking problems because of its success as an international resort. In 1991, the city built a 340-space underground parking structure in the city center. Despite its convenient location and low price, it remained half empty most days while motorists fought over on-street parking spaces nearby. Most spaces were occupied by locals and downtown commuters who performed the 90-Minute Shuffle moving their cars every 90 minutes to avoid a parking ticket. In 1995, the city began charging for onstreet parking using multispace meters. Parking fees are highest in the center and decline with distance from the core. Parking is priced on nearby residential streets, but residents are allowed a limited number of passes. The city s marketing campaign let motorists know about the meters and each resident received one free $20 prepaid parking meter card. Motorists were allowed one free parking violation, and parking control officers allow an hour of free parking to drivers who are confused by the meters. Although some downtown workers initially protested (opponents organized a Honk if you hate paid parking campaign the day pricing began), pricing proved effective at reducing the city s parking problems, and six months later the program was supported 3 1 in the municipal election. Most downtown business owners now support parking pricing to ensure convenient parking for customers and to raise funds for city programs. Austin Parking Benefit District. Parking spillover can make it difficult for residents and visitors to find parking. Some residents are concerned that public service vehicles cannot pass two lanes of parked vehicles on the street, and also feel that street parking reduces a neighborhood s attractiveness. Austin, Texas, addresses these problems by allowing neighborhoods to establish a parking benefit district (PBD). A PBD is created by metering on-street parking (with pay stations on the periphery of the neighborhood or with the traditional parking meters) and dedicating the net revenue (less costs for maintenance and enforcement) toward neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks, curb ramps, and bicycle lanes. The PMD may be used in conjunction with a residential permit parking program to ensure that parking is available for residents and their visitors. Campus parking management. A survey of university campus managers indicates that many universities are converting parking lots to buildings, fewer are adding parking capacity, and that many are implementing various parking and transportation management strategies in order to devote more campus land to academic facilities rather than parking lots. Typical parking management strategies include permits, meters, a cashout program, a prohibitive policy for freshmen, and eligibility based on residential location. Annual permit fees vary depending on the location of the campus and the location of a parking space within the campus. Various strategies are used to deal with spillover parking problems. ever, many of these costs can be minimized with good planning and new technologies, such as electronic parking payment systems that accommodate various types of payment (coins, bills, debit and credit cards, telephone, and online) and variable price structures. They do not require motorists to predict how long they will park and only charge for the number of minutes a space is actually used. With careful planning, significant parking supply reductions can be achieved in conjunction with improved travel options, better user information, and more convenient pricing methods. Programs costs are fully recovered, and travelers are better off overall. A major benefit of parking management is its ability to reduce various facility costs. Because parking facility costs are usually paid Figure 1. Typical Annualized Parking Costs Figure 1 illustrates typical annualized parking facility costs, which range from less than $500 for suburban (low land value) surface parking to nearly $3,000 for structured or underground parking in a Central Business District. Costs and Benefits Parking management costs include additional planning, operation, and enforcement activities in addition to motorists inconvenience. Howindirectly through rents, taxes, and as a cost component of retail goods, most people have little idea how much they actually pay for parking facilities or the potential savings from improved management. Figure 1 illustrates examples of annualized parking facility costs. They range from about $400 per space in suburban areas with low land values to nearly $3,000 a year for underground parking with attendants. Assuming two on-street and three offstreet spaces (one residential and two commercial) per motor vehicle, with annualized costs averaging $400 per on-street, $600 per residential off-street, and $800 per nonresidential off-street space, parking costs total about $3,000 per vehicle or about $2,500 per capita. As described earlier, current parking planning practices result in a 20 to 50 percent greater supply than what is optimal, thereby increasing direct costs by $500 to $1,250 per capita. zoningpractice 6.09 AmericaN Planning Association page 6

Parking Management Best Practices Excessive parking standards contribute to the self-reinforcing cycle of increased automobile dependency and sprawled land use illustrated in Figure 2. This imposes indirect costs such as increased impervious surface and associated stormwater management costs, reduced green space, and reduced accessibility. This tends to be inequitable since it reduces accessibility for physically, economically, and socially disadvantaged people and forces people to pay for parking regardless of whether or not they own a vehicle. Although some lower income people benefit directly from subsidized al transport systems, and help reduce various transport problems including congestion, facility costs, consumer transportation costs, traffic accidents, energy consumption, pollution emissions, and stormwater management costs, typically by 15 to 25 percent. To the degree that such programs are rational (total incremental benefits exceed total incremental costs), they tend to improve economic efficiency. They also tend to achieve social equity objectives by improving accessibility for disadvantaged people and by reducing cost burdens on lower income residents. Figure 2. Cycle of Automobile Dependency and Sprawl Conclusions Current parking planning practices are inefficient and result in economically excessive parking supply, increased vehicle ownership and use, and more dispersed land-use development patterns that contribute to various economic, social, and environmental problems. As a result, planners increasingly emphasize management solutions to solve parking problems rather than continually increasing supply. This article describes more than a dozen management strategies that result in more efficient use of parking resources. These strategies are technically feasible and cost-effective, and can provide many benefits to users and communities. A comprehensive parking management program that includes an appropriate combination of cost-effective strategies can usually reduce the amount of parking required at a destination by 20 to 50 percent and provide a variety of economic, social, and environmental benefits. Although all these strategies have been implemented successfully in some situations, they are not being implemented as much as is economically justified. Implementing parking management requires overcoming substantial obstacles. Motorists have become accustomed to having abundant, free parking at most destinations and tend to oppose shifts to more rational management. Parking management implementation requires changing the way we think about parking problems and expanding the range of options and impacts considered during planning. It requires educating officials and the general public concerning the benefits of parking management, and reforming planning and funding institutions so resources currently devoted to parking facilities can be used for parking management. Cover photo: Public parking in an underground garage. istockphoto. com/ryersonclark. Design concept by Lisa Barton. This figure illustrates the self-reinforcing cycle of increased automobile dependency and sprawl. parking, they would generally benefit more from flexible subsidies that can be used for other modes and nontransportation goods. Where parking is efficiently managed with flexible standards, efficient pricing, and parking subsidies shifted to cost-effective alternative management strategies, people tend to own five to 10 percent fewer vehicles and make 15 to 25 percent fewer vehicle trips, at least in urban and growing suburban conditions. This suggests that a significant portion of current transportation problems result from inefficient parking management. Described more positively, improved parking management can help create more accessible land-use patterns and more multimod- Todd Litman Vol. 26, No. 6 Zoning Practice is a monthly publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $75 (U.S.) and $100 (foreign). W. Paul Farmer, fa i c p, Executive Director; William R. Klein, a i c p, Director of Research Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548 0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, a i c p, and David Morley, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Copyright 2009 by American Planning Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60603. The American Planning Association also has offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; www.planning.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste. zoningpractice 6.09 AmericaN Planning Association page 7

1 of 3 Parking Management Best Practices Zoning Practice July 2009 Ask the Author Here are reader questions answered by Todd Litman, author of the June 2009 Zoning Practice article "Parking Management Best Practices: Making Efficient Use of Parking Resources." Question from Jacqui Lofaro, Southampton, N.Y.: I am on the planning board in Southampton, New York. All parking is free. There is a huge parking problem, especially during the summer tourist season. How do you get the community and town board members to support charging? Thanks, and I look forward to your new book. Answer from author Todd Litman: Thanks for the question. It is relatively easy to identify suitable parking management strategies (sharing, improved regulations, efficient pricing, commute trip reduction programs, reduced and more accurate parking requirements, etc.). The larger challenge is to convince decision makers and the general public to accept these changes; for example, that they must pay for parking that was previously free, that they will need to walk a few blocks between their parking space and destinations during peak periods, or that they will be encouraged to use alternative modes when possible. The bad news is that current, inefficient parking management practices are well entrenched: Most motorists assume that parking should be abundant and free, and current zoning codes, development policies and municipal parking policies reflect these assumptions. Change can be difficult. However, there is also good news. There are many reasons to change current policies and implement more efficient parking management. Current policies are wasteful and contradict most other planning objectives. They assume that land is cheap, that everybody drives everywhere, and that automobile dependency and sprawl are acceptable. As soon as we question any of those assumptions, for example, if land is costly and we want to deliver affordable housing, or a city is becoming more multimodal with a growing portion of trips by walking, cycling, and public transportation, then parking policy and planning reforms become justified. Every so often you will probably encounter an opportunity to introduce political change. For example, your community may want to encourage more affordable housing and infill development, and you can point out that parking policy changes are needed to help achieve those objectives. Similarly, your community might consider traffic and parking congestion major problems, which also justify parking policy reforms and development of a parking management plan, or even better, a transportation management plan that includes parking management. Parking management and commute trip reduction can also be part of your community's plans to reduce climate change emissions and sprawl. In other words, parking management is an effective solution to many different problems (or, described differently, it helps achieve many different planning objectives). Your challenge is to present these reforms in a positive way. Focus on the benefits and emphasize the need for comprehensive policies and programs to insure that these strategies can be implemented with minimal problems. For example, if you propose reduced parking requirements for new development, you should recognize that this could result in spillover parking problems, so your community should also implement suitable regulations, user information, and enforcement practices. There are many reasons for communities to charge increasingly for parking, to manage parking demand, encourage use of alternative modes, and generate revenue. Many communities have successfully introduced pricing of previously free parking, including Aspen, Colorado, and Pasadena, California. It turns out that motorists are quite willing to pay for parking provided that they receive something in return: more convenience finding a space, a better local environment (for example, if revenues are used to finance streetscape improvements), or reductions in other fees and taxes. See Douglas Kolozsvari and Donald Shoup's article, "Turning Small Change Into

2 of 3 Parking Management Best Practices Big Changes," www.sppsr.ucla.edu/up/webfiles/smallchange.pdf. Build partnerships. Developers, downtown associations, environmentalists, housing affordabilty advocates, and municipal engineers (who want to reduce stormwater management costs) all have good reasons to support more efficient parking management. Learn more about parking management, and find good examples and case studies that demonstrate the success of parking management in comparable communities. Lots of good resources are now available: CNT (2006), Paved Over: Surface Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable Development?, Center for Neighborhood Technology; www.drcog.org/documents/pavedover- Final.pdf. CNU (2008), Parking Requirements and Affordable Housing, Congress for the New Urbanism, at www.cnu.org/node/2241. Matthew R. Cuddy (2007), A Practical Method for Developing Context-Sensitive Residential Parking Standards, Dissertation, Rutgers University, http://transportation.northwestern.edu /news/2007/cuddy_dissertation_final_cv.pdf. FHWA (2007), Advanced Parking Management Systems: A Cross-Cutting Study, Report FHWA-JPO-07-011, Intelligent Transportation Systems, FHWA, USDOT, at www.its.dot.gov/jpodocs/repts_te/14318.htm. HUD (2008), "Parking Regulations and Housing Affordability," Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse, Volume 7, Issue 2, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, at www.huduser.org/rbc/newsletter/vol7iss2more.html. Litman, Todd (2004), Parking Requirement Impacts on Housing Affordability, VTPI, at www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf. Litman, Todd (2006), Parking Management Best Practices, Planners Press, www.planning.org/apastore/search/default.aspx?p=3502. Litman, Todd (2006), Parking Management: Innovative Solutions to Vehicle Parking Problems, Planetizen, www.planetizen.com/node/19149. Todd Litman (2008), Recommendations for Improving LEED Transportation and Parking Credits, Victoria Transport Policy Institutem www.vtpi.org/leed_rec.pdf. Manville, Michael, and Donald Shoup (2005), "People, Parking, and Cities," Journal of Urban Planning and Development, December, 2005, pp. 233-245, http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu /People,Parking,CitiesJUPD.pdf; summarized in Access 25, ( www.uctc.net), Fall 2004, pp. 2-8. Marshall, Wesley E., and Norman W. Garrick (2006), Parking at Mixed-Use Centers in Small Cities, Transportation Research Record 1977, Transportation Research Board, www.darien.org/communitymatters/blog/archives/parkingstudyfromuconn.doc; also see, 'Place First' Parking Plans, www.planetizen.com/node/34152. MTC (2007), Developing Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth in Local Jurisdictions: Best Practices, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth /parking_seminar/bestpractices.pdf. Mukhija, Vinit, and Donald Shoup (2006), "Quantity Versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements," Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 296-308, http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/quantityversusqualityinoff-streetparkingrequirements.pdf. Redwood City (2007), Downtown Parking, Redwood City, www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/cds /redevelopment/downtown/parking.html. The City's Parking Management Plan is at www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/cds/redevelopment/downtown/parking /Downtown%20Redwood%20City%20Parking%20Plan.pdf. Russo, Ryan (2001), Planning for Residential Parking: A Guide For Housing Developers and Planners, Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, www.nonprofithousing.org, and the Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, www.nonprofithousing.org/actioncenter/toolbox/parking. Schaller Consulting (2006), Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo, Transportation Alternatives, www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming /soho_curbing_cars.pdf. Shoup, Donald (1999), "The Trouble With Minimum Parking Requirements," Transportation

3 of 3 Parking Management Best Practices Research A, Vol. 33, No. 7/8, Sept./Nov., pp. 549-574, www.vtpi.org/shoup.pdf. Shoup, Donald (2005), The High Cost of Free Parking, Planners Press, www.planning.org/apastore/search/default.aspx?p=1814. This is a comprehensive and entertaining book of the causes, costs, and problems created by free parking, and how to correct these distortions. Shoup, Donald (2005), Parking Cash Out, Report 532, Planning Advisory Service, American Planning Association, www.planning.org/apastore/search/default.aspx?p=2439. Shoup, Donald (2006), The Price of Parking On Great Streets, Planetizen, www.planetizen.com/node/19150. Shoup, Donald (2008), The Politics and Economics of Parking On Campus, University of California Los Angeles, http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/politicsandeconomicsofcampusparking.pdf. Simon Fraser University (2005), Super Sustainable BC Market Mechanisms Briefing Paper: Transportation, Simon Fraser University, www.sfu.ca/~ssbc/resources.htm. Topp, Christopher A. (2009), Arapahoe County Parking Utilization Study Concerning Residential Transit Oriented Development, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, www.vtpi.org/topp_parking.pdf. USEPA (2006), Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions, Development, Community, and Environment Division (DCED); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/parking.htm. Weinberger, Rachel, Mark Seaman, and Carolyn Johnson (2008), Suburbanizing the City: How New York City Parking Requirements Lead to More Driving, University of Pennsylvania for Transportation Alternatives, www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports /suburbanizing_the_city.pdf. Supplemental answer from Todd Litman: Moments after I sent my previous message I learned about the following document which was just released: San Francisco On-Street Parking Management and Pricing Study. Question from Dan Fleishman, Director of Planning and Development, Stayton, Ore.: I thoroughly enjoyed reading the June Zoning Practice. In every city or town I have worked with, parking supply and demand in the downtown area has been an issue. I left northern New England and moved to Oregon three years ago. At 7,800 people, I am now working for the largest city that I have ever worked with or for in my 30-year career. Is there any research that indicates that the theories regarding parking management in large cities is applicable to smaller cities those of 50,000, or 10,000 or less? Or do big-city folks not even consider us to be cities just small towns?) Answer from author Todd Litman: Yes, parking can be managed more efficiently in small towns and suburban areas. Many studies suggest that current zoning codes are excessive in small towns and strategies such as sharing and commute trip reduction programs can be effective. See: Marshall, Wesley E., and Norman W. Garrick (2006), Parking at Mixed-Use Centers in Small Cities, Transportation Research Record 1977, Transportation Research Board; www.darien.org/communitymatters/blog/archives/parkingstudyfromuconn.doc; also see, 'Place First' Parking Plans, www.planetizen.com/node/34152. Copyright 2009 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved

Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices A publication of the Governor s Office of Smart Growth Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Governor Michael S. Steele, Lieutenant Governor Prepared by: Robin Zimbler Governor s Office of Smart Growth 16 Francis Street, 4th Floor Annapolis, MD 21401 410.974.2300 www.smartgrowth.state.md.us Used with permission.

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction........ 1 2. Parking Management..... 2 2.1. Limiting Parking Supply..... 2 2.1.1. Reduced Minimum Parking Requirements 2.1.2. Parking Maximums and Areawide Parking Caps 2.1.3. Shared Parking 2.1.4. Parking Management Districts 2.1.5. Challenges to Limiting Parking Supply 2.2. Controlling Parking Demand....... 9 2.2.1. Transit Investments 2.2.2. Transit-Oriented Development and Traditional Neighborhood Design 2.2.3. Transportation Demand Management Associations and Transportation Management Associations 2.2.4. Unbundled Parking 2.2.5. Pricing Strategies 2.2.6. Challenges to Controlling Parking Demand 2.3. Possible Strategies...... 16 3. Parking Design.... 19 3.1. Objective: Design sites such that vehicles are not the dominant feature 19 3.1.1. Location 3.1.2. Screening and Landscaping 3.1.3. Architectural Treatments 3.2. Objective: Provide necessary parking without large expanses of pavement... 20 3.2.1. Provision of On-Street Parking 3.2.2. Construction of Structures Rather than Lots 3.2.3. Automated Parking Structures 3.2.4. Reduced Stall Dimensions and Compact Car Spaces 3.2.5. Tandem/Stacked or Valet Parking 3.2.6. Alternative Pavers 3.2.7. Multiple Lots 3.3. Objective: Minimize runoff from parking facilities utilizing techniques to return surface water to the ground.... 23 3.3.1. Low Impact Development Techniques 3.3.2. Green Roofs 3.4. Objective: Encourage vibrant street level activity.. 24 3.4.1. Provision of On-Street Parking 3.4.2. Location 3.4.3. Retail and Commercial Uses 3.5. Objective: Create a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicles... 24 3.5.1. Provision of On-Street Parking 3.5.2. Limit Curb Cuts 3.5.3. Pedestrian Corridors 3.5.4. Pedestrian and Bicycle Entrances 3.5.5. Bicycle Parking 3.5.6. Signage 3.5.7. Lighting Page I

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Table of Contents 3.6. Challenges to Smart Parking Design.. 26 3.7. Possible Strategies. 26 4. Parking Financing... 29 4.1. Privately-Owned Parking Structures..... 29 4.1.1. Bundled Parking 4.1.2. Parking Fees 4.1.3. Lease and/or Sell Space 4.1.4. Reduced Minimum Parking Requirements 4.1.5. Density Bonuses 4.1.6. Payment in Lieu of Taxes Agreements 4.1.7. Private Activity Bonds 4.2. Publicly-Owned Parking Structures...... 31 4.2.1. Revenue Bonds 4.2.2. General Obligation Bonds 4.2.3. Special Assessment Bonds 4.2.4. Double-Barreled Bonds 4.2.5. Tax Increment Finance Bonds 4.2.6. Public-Private Partnerships 4.2.7. Lease Purchase Financing 4.3. Challenges to Parking Financing. 36 4.4. Possible Strategies. 36 5. Conclusion..... 38 6. References.. 39 7. Useful Web-sites. 41 8. Index. 42 Page II

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management PARKING MANAGEMENT As dependency on the automobile has grown, local policies have reinforced the car culture, accommodating increased parking demand through local zoning ordinances. The primary tool local governments have used to accommodate parking is parking ratio ordinances, which establish the minimum number of spaces a development project must provide for a given land use and project size. Table 1 outlines some of these general standards for minimum parking requirements based on land use. These ratios are typically drawn from generic parking generation rates, irrespective of site-specific and project-specific characteristics and other variables that would help to more accurately reflect market reality. The overstatement of parking ratios has in many cases led to an oversupply of parking. There are many problems associated with current parking ratios and the subsequent oversupply of parking. These traditional approaches to regulating parking lead to vast expanses of parking which in turn separate land uses, reduce densities, impair walkability, and create obstacles to providing transit and pedestrian friendly communities. From a developer s perspective, inflated parking ratios reduce the development potential of a site, requiring more land to be used for parking as opposed to a higher and better use, and adding significant costs to development projects. In fact, some development projects may not be financially feasible under current local parking policies. Addressing these concerns requires local jurisdictions and developers to work together to revise parking policies to more appropriately manage parking. Revised parking policies should accommodate necessary parking, while at the same time encouraging attractive, pedestrian and transit friendly urban design, promoting alternative modes of transportation, preserving open space, and improving air and water quality. This section of the paper details parking management best practices that aim to achieve the above mentioned objectives. Such practices or strategies include reduced minimum parking requirements, parking maximums, area-wide parking caps, shared parking, and parking districts. These strategies could be required through local zoning ordinances or be voluntary, on a project-by-project basis, implemented through developers agreements. Given that efforts to control the supply of parking will only be feasible and effective when there are concurrent efforts to reduce the demand for parking, this section also proposes various best practices to reduce the demand for parking including transit investments, transit-oriented development and traditional neighborhood design policies, transportation demand management programs, unbundled parking, and parking pricing strategies. Limiting Parking Supply TABLE 1. General Standards for Minimum Parking Requirements LAND USE Shopping Center > 600,000 square feet Shopping Center < 600,000 square feet Local planners have traditionally regulated the supply of parking through zoning codes that prescribe minimum parking requirements for development projects based on land use and size. These minimum Page 2 PEAK SPACE FACTOR UNIT 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross leasable area 4.0 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross leasable area Office 0.50 3.00 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross leasable area, or 0.10 0.75 space per employee Industrial 0.67 3.50 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross leasable area, or 0.36 1.60 spaces per employee Residential 0.20 2.00 spaces per unit Source: Urban Land Institute and National Parking Association, The Dimensions of Parking, Fourth Edition [Washington, D.C.: ULI, 2000]

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management requirements are typically drawn from parking generation rates and standards that are published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In one such commonly used publication, Parking Generation, the parking generation rates are derived from a small number of studies that measure peak parking demand at suburban locations, where parking is free and there is no public transit (Shoup, Roughly Right or Precisely Wrong). The maximum parking demand from these studies oftentimes becomes the minimum parking requirement established in zoning codes. Recognizing the limitations of these parking generation rates, planners will sometimes look to zoning codes in comparable cities to further inform their own minimum parking requirements. However, this comparison is also quite limited in that it cannot account for all of the geographic and demographic factors specific to a particular jurisdiction or development site. As a result of applying published generic parking standards or borrowing parking standards from seemingly comparable cities, minimum parking requirements tend to be excessive and inflexible, leading to more parking than is necessary. Vast expanse of underutilized parking at shopping center in Towson, Maryland. One of the primary ways local planners can more appropriately control the supply of parking is by revising local zoning ordinances to more accurately reflect local parking demand and circumstances. This portion of this section proposes potential revisions to local zoning ordinances including reduced parking requirements given a project s proximity to transit, surrounding land uses, demographics of prospective users, implementation of transportation demand management programs, or payment of fees in lieu of parking. Other strategies that might be considered for incorporation in local ordinances include parking maximums, area-wide parking caps, and shared parking. The roles parking management districts can play in controlling the supply of parking are also discussed in this section. Reduced Minimum Parking Requirements Local zoning ordinances have historically controlled the amount of parking at a site by imposing minimum parking requirements, calculated as a ratio of the number of parking spaces required per square foot, per dwelling unit, or other measure of intensity. This ratio varies by the type of land use. Rather than imposing inflexible requirements, local zoning ordinances could incorporate mechanisms to tailor parking requirements to specific development projects. The following list of factors are among those that should be considered. Locational Factors. The location of the proposed project will impact parking demand. For example, if a project is well served by mass transit, the project might generate a lower parking demand than what would otherwise be anticipated, relying on generic parking generation formulas. Moreover, if the proposed project is located amidst high-density development with a mix of land uses, there might be existing parking facilities nearby, thus reducing the demand for parking on-site. Users may also access the project and other nearby uses on foot, further reducing parking demand. Demographic Factors. The demographics of the anticipated users of a project, including employees, customers, and residents, will impact parking demand. For example, due to Reduced Minimum Requirements for Locational and Demographic Factors - San Diego, California The San Diego Municipal Code permits reduced minimum parking requirements for residential, office, retail, institutional, and industrial uses in designated transit areas and for residential uses in designated very low income areas. With respect to residential uses, the minimum parking requirements can be reduced in multiple dwelling unit developments, depending on the multiple dwelling unit type (number of bedrooms). For example, in a multiple dwelling unit development with 2 bedroom units, the basic minimum parking requirement is 2 spaces per dwelling unit; however, in both transit areas and very low income areas this requirement is reduced to 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit. With respect to nonresidential uses, the reduction in minimum parking requirements for developments in transit varies based on use. However, in general the minimum parking requirement for nonresidential uses in transit areas is about 85% percent of the minimum requirement for development outside transit areas. Page 3

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management the high cost of car ownership, low-income residents generally have lower levels of car ownership than that of the general public. If the anticipated users of a proposed project have low levels of car ownership, the project might generate a lower parking demand than what would otherwise be anticipated. The age distribution of anticipated users will also be indicative of parking demand. For example, if the anticipated users of a proposed project are seniors, the project will necessitate less parking than what would otherwise be anticipated. In addition to tailoring parking requirements to project-specific conditions such as locational and demographic factors, local zoning ordinances might also prescribe reductions to minimum parking requirements on a project-by-project basis in exchange for a developer s commitment to a transportation demand management program or payment of fees in lieu of providing the required parking. Transportation Demand Management Programs. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are typically employer-led programs intended to reduce the parking demand of employees by supporting carpooling, offering subsidies for transit, furnishing bicycle facilities, and providing shuttle service from off-site parking facilities. These features of TDM programs are discussed in greater detail in the following section on controlling parking demand. An example of a jurisdiction that reduces minimum parking requirements in exchange for an employer s creation and implementation of a TDM program is Hartford, Connecticut, where parking requirements can be reduced up to 30 percent in exchange for discounted carpool parking, rideshare promotions, subsidized transit passes and shuttle service from off-site parking. Reduced Minimum Requirements for Transportation Demand Management Programs Seattle, Washington The Seattle Municipal Code stipulates that for office or manufacturing uses that require 40 or more parking spaces, the minimum parking requirements may be reduced up to 40% by substituting transportation demand management programs. These provisions include: for every certified carpool space, the total parking requirement may be reduced by 1-9/10 spaces up to a maximum of 40% of the total parking requirement; for every certified vanpool purchased or leased by the applicant for employee use, the total parking requirement may be reduced by 6 spaces up to a maximum of 20% of the total parking requirement; if transit passes are provided to all employees and transit service is within 800 feet of the development, the total parking requirement may be reduced up to 10%; and for every 4 covered bicycle parking spaces provided, the total parking requirement may be reduced by 1 space up to a maximum of 5% of the total parking requirement. Fees-in-lieu. Fees-in-lieu are established by jurisdictions as an alternative to requiring onsite parking facilities. More specifically, some local jurisdictions allow reductions to minimum parking requirements in exchange for developer payment into a municipal parking or traffic mitigation fund. The accrued money from the municipal parking fund helps finance cityowned, centrally located, off-site parking facilities. The in-lieu fees may be mandatory or voluntary and are set either by calculating a flat rate for each parking space not provided or by carefully determining appropriate developmentspecific fees on a case-by-case basis. By paying fees-in-lieu, developers have the ability to circumvent constructing on-site parking facilities, and are subsequently able to improve site design and preserve unique and historic resources that might otherwise be demolished to accommodate on-site parking. Fees-in-lieu tend to be very effective when rapid development is occurring in a defined area. However, absent a critical mass of concurrent development projects in a defined area, the municipal parking fund may only increase in increments insufficient to develop municipal parking structures in a timely manner (Urban Land Institute 2000). As a result, developers might only opt to pay in-lieu fees when a parking facility will be available on a definite schedule and within an acceptable proximity to the development project. An example of a jurisdiction that allows developers to pay fees-in-lieu of the required parking is the Town of Westport, Connecticut. The Town s Zoning Regulations allow for developers to pay fees-in-lieu of providing all or a portion of the off-street parking spaces required for projects located in a designated Historic Design District. In this example, the fee-in-lieu of parking is set at $2,000 per Page 4

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management deficit parking space and must be paid in full by the applicant prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. Local zoning ordinances should be clear about the terms and conditions for reductions to minimum parking requirements by-right, specifying the percent of required spaces that can be reduced for such conditions as proximity to transit, surrounding land use mix and density, demographics and behaviors of prospective users, implementation of TDM programs, and payment of fees-in-lieu. By setting clearly defined terms and conditions for reductions in minimum parking requirements, local jurisdictions can limit the number of projects that have to go through the lengthy and uncertain process of receiving a zoning variance. Although reduced minimum parking requirements might benefit developers by reducing the costs associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of parking facilities, developers may not opt for the reduced parking requirement because of impacts insufficient parking might have on the marketability of the project to lending institutions and prospective users. As a result, developers might still oversupply parking in order to meet inflated financing standards set by lending institutions. However, in many cases, lending institutions do refer to local zoning, and local jurisdictions have been revising local zoning ordinances to incorporate parking maximums or area-wide parking caps to ensure there is not an oversupply of parking; these strategies are discussed in the next part of this section. Parking Maximums and Areawide Parking Caps As discussed in the previous section on reduced minimum parking requirements, local zoning ordinances usually establish the amount of parking developers must provide. However, in contrast to minimum parking requirements, it is becoming more and more common for local jurisdictions to revise zoning ordinances to incorporate parking maximums or areawide parking caps, both intended to ensure that there is not an excess supply of parking. Parking Maximums Portland, Oregon Parking Maximums. Parking maximums restrict the total number of parking spaces that can be constructed at a particular development site. For example, the City of Seattle allows a maximum of one parking space per 1,000 square feet of downtown office space, and is considering extending this maximum to areas outside of the downtown. The City of San Francisco limits parking to 7% of a downtown building s floor area (Millard-Ball 2002). Maximums can complement minimum parking requirements, thus ensuring a threshold level of parking supply, or can stand alone, leaving individual developers to determine the appropriate amount of parking necessary. While reduced minimum parking requirements allow developers the choice of providing more parking than the required amount, parking maximums are absolute limits on the amount of parking that can be provided. As such, parking maximums leave little room for making mistakes in projecting parking demand. If a jurisdiction underestimates parking demand and sets maximums too low, developers cannot second guess that decision and provide more parking, as they can with reduced minimum parking requirements. Areawide Parking Caps. Areawide parking caps limit the total number of parking spaces that can be constructed in a defined area. Similar to parking maximums, areawide parking caps set The Portland City Code has implemented parking maximums to complement parking minimums in areas outside the Central City district. The zoning ordinance specifies that the purpose of such provisions is to promote the efficient use of land, enhance urban form, encourage use of alternative modes of transportation, provide for better pedestrian movement, and protect air and water quality. The maximums vary with the use the parking is serving and the location of the use. That is, areas that are zoned for more intense development and are easily reached by alternative modes of transportation have lower maximums than areas of less intense development or less frequent or no transit service. For example, the minimum parking requirement for general office use is 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area, and the maximum parking requirement is 1 space per 294 square feet of floor area. However, if the development is located more than ¼ mile from a transit stop with 20-minute peak-hour bus service and more than ½ mile from a transit stop or station with 20-minute peak-hour light rail or streetcar service, the maximum number of parking spaces is actually increased to 125% of what otherwise would be the maximum requirement. Page 5

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management an absolute limit on the amount of parking that can be provided, in so doing, leaving little room for mistakes in projecting parking demand. Areawide parking caps require considerable administrative and planning effort to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces for a defined area, and to accurately apportion the allotted spaces to specific development projects. Both parking maximums and areawide parking caps encourage better utilization of existing parking facilities and force businesses to encourage their employees and customers to use alternative modes of transportation. In fact, many jurisdictions that have instituted parking maximums or areawide parking caps have done so in response to non-attainment of environmental standards, particularly, air quality standards. For either parking maximums or areawide parking caps to be successful, it is imperative to have accessible and frequent public transportation, and the jurisdiction must have a strong real estate market, where the locational advantages considerably outweigh the perceived drawback of a lack of parking. Shared Parking Shared parking can be defined as parking utilized jointly among different buildings and facilities in an area to take advantage of different peak parking characteristics that vary by time of day, day of week, and/or season of year. For example, many businesses or government offices experience their peak business during normal daytime business hours on weekdays, while restaurants and bars peak in the evening hours and on weekends. This presents an opportunity for shared parking arrangements. Historically, local zoning ordinances have not permitted shared parking stating that if two or more uses are located on the same lot or in the same structure, the total number of parking spaces required equals the sum of spaces required for each individual use. Since most parking spaces are only used part time, this policy leads to the underutilization of many parking facilities, with a significant portion of spaces unused. On the other hand, by allowing for and encouraging shared parking, local jurisdictions can decrease the total number of spaces required relative to the total number of spaces needed for each land use separately. As a result, allowing for shared parking arrangements significantly reduces the amount of land devoted to parking and, in so doing, creates more opportunities for creative site planning and landscaping. Some local jurisdictions do incorporate language in local ordinances to permit and even encourage shared parking. These jurisdictions allow shared parking to meet minimum parking requirements for uses located within the same lot or building and also permit off-site shared parking arrangements to meet on-site parking requirements for complementary uses within a defined area. One way in which local ordinances help enable shared parking is to allow for off-street parking facilities to be located off-site of the lot on which the structure or use being served is located. Such ordinances usually specify a maximum distance from the structure or use within which the off-site parking facility must be located. These location requirements are typically based on acceptable walking distances. For example, the San Diego (CA) Municipal Code states that shared parking facilities must be located within 600 feet of the uses served. The Eugene (OR) Municipal Code allows for a longer distance stating that required off-street parking facilities must be within 1320 feet of the development site that the parking is required to serve. In addition to revisions to local zoning codes to enable shared parking, shared parking arrangements can be implemented through shared parking agreements between individual developers or the construction of public parking facilities. There are several barriers to implementing shared parking arrangements. In particular, there is a considerable amount of planning needed to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces under shared parking arrangements. Some local jurisdictions calculate this number through the following method: 1) determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as though it were a separate use, by time period; 2) calculate the total parking required across uses for each time period; and 3) set the requirement at the maximum total across time periods. Other jurisdictions allow for the parties involved to determine the appropriate number of spaces. In these cases, the applicants must submit an analysis that shows that peak parking times occur at different times and that the parking area will be large enough to accommodate the anticipated demand. Since changes in ownership, operations, or use, might alter parking demand in the future, many ordinances that allow for shared parking require contingency plans to accommodate additional parking that may be necessary in the future. Page 6

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Shared Parking Montgomery County, Maryland The Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance allows for shared parking when any land or building is under the same ownership or under a joint use agreement and is used for 2 or more purposes. The uses being served by the shared parking arrangement must be within a 500 feet walking distance of the shared parking facility. The number of parking spaces required under a shared parking arrangement in Montgomery County is calculated by the previous mentioned method. The following is a generalized example of calculating the shared parking requirement for a mixed use development, given the regulations in the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance. The calculations are based on a development project with general retail and office uses. The retail use has a gross floor area of 100,000 square feet and the office use has a gross floor area of 100,000 square feet. The development is located in the designated Southern Area of Montgomery County and is located 1,000 feet from a Metro station. Given this location, the minimum amount of parking normally required for a retail use is 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area and the minimum requirement for an office use is 2.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area. The following table summarizes the calculations. The percentage of parking requirement column is based on the parking credit schedule in the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance. OFFICE USE RETAIL USE Parking Minimum Parking Requirement Percentage of Parking Requirement Adjusted Parking Requirement Minimum Parking Requirement Percentage of Parking Requirement Adjusted Parking Requirement Requirement by Time Period Weekday 210 100% 210 500 60% 300 510 Daytime Weekday 210 10% 21 500 90% 450 471 Evening Weekend 210 10% 21 500 100% 500 521 Daytime Weekend 210 5% 10.5 500 70% 350 360.5 Evening Nighttime 210 5% 10.5 500 5% 25 35.5 For this example, the minimum parking requirement for the shared parking arrangement is 521 spaces since that is the maximum number of spaces across the five time periods. This is significantly less than what would otherwise be required, 710 spaces, if shared parking were not permitted a 26% reduction in the minimum parking requirement. Parking Management Districts Parking management districts are areas designated by local jurisdictions in which parking supply and rates are regulated to meet the parking needs of the area, at the same time as promoting transit use, ridesharing, and other alternative modes of transportation to the single occupancy vehicle. The two key components of parking management districts supply management strategies and pricing policies are designed to work together to enhance economic development and encourage a balanced transportation system in the parking management district. District-based supply management strategies are established to encourage mixed use development projects and areas and to ensure the maximum utilization of land, requiring less land area for parking and, in so doing, making more land available for tax-generating purposes. To complement these supply management strategies, district-based pricing policies are established to influence individual travel behavior and encourage alternative modes of transportation. These pricing policies are discussed in greater detail in the section of this paper on controlling parking demand. With respect to district-based supply management strategies, the parking supply in parking management districts can be managed on a project-by-project basis or through the development of centralized, shared parking facilities. That is, some local jurisdictions manage parking supply in parking management districts by requiring parking ordinances for development projects located in the district. In applying for a parking Page 7

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management ordinance, developers must justify the parking levels that will be built as a part of the development project. For example, in Baltimore, Maryland, no land may be used as a parking lot nor may any building be razed so as to permit the use of the land as a parking lot unless authorized by an ordinance of the Mayor and City Council. This requirement is to permit the Mayor and City Council to consider and evaluate the need for the parking lot, the proposed appearance of the parking lot, and possible aesthetic damage to the area surrounding the parking lot, with particular respect to the proposed removal of historic or aesthetically valuable properties. By requiring a parking ordinance for development projects located in a parking district, jurisdictions can control the overall parking supply regulating on-site parking on a project-by-project basis. Local jurisdictions can also manage parking supply in parking management districts by developing, operating, and maintaining publicly-owned, centralized parking facilities financed through fees in lieu and other methods described later in this paper in the section on parking financing. These facilities alleviate the need for individual development projects to provide parking on-site. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland, has established four parking management districts in Bethesda, Montgomery Hills, Silver Spring, and Wheaton. The purpose of each district is to support the comprehensive development of the central business district by providing, operating and maintaining economically self-sufficient parking facilities which keep pace with the needs generated by growth in each district. Moreover, the number of parking spaces provided in each district is carefully calculated given the desired modal split between private cars and transit. There are four major funding sources of the parking management districts including fees in lieu, parking receipts, enforcement revenues, and income from investments. By developing, operating, and maintaining centralized parking facilities, jurisdictions can control the overall parking supply, encouraging the shared use of off-site parking facilities by a variety of development projects. Challenges to Limiting Parking Supply There are several challenges to limiting parking supply through the above-mentioned strategies. Supply management strategies presuppose that the projected variations in parking demand are accurate, which is not always the case. Furthermore, changes in ownership or operations of existing uses, or future changes in land use, might alter parking demand. In case the projected parking demand proves inaccurate or changes over time and, as a result, projects generate a greater parking demand than originally anticipated, some local jurisdictions will only approve reduced minimum parking requirements or shared parking arrangements if the developer has an agreed upon plan to accommodate the additional spaces (Urban Land Institute 2000). Such plans might include land banks or landscaped reserves. For example, the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance allows for land banked areas to be used in place of up to 30% of the required parking. If at some point in the future, the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner will be required to construct parking on the land banked area. Similar to Iowa City, Palo Alto, California, allows for land banked areas to be used in place of 50% of the required parking. However, in the case of Palo Alto, the land banked area is actually more appropriately called a landscaped reserve since the land must be landscaped or serve a recreational function such as a play area. Jurisdictions might also require developers agreements and/or land covenants to ensure the continued implementation of agreed upon programs, irrespective of future ownership, operations, or change in use. As discussed previously, parking maximums and areawide parking caps leave little room for mistakes in projecting parking demand. As a result, these policies must be somewhat flexible and regularly revised to ensure that an adequate level of parking is supplied. While some jurisdictions are revising local codes to incorporate maximums or areawide caps to complement minimum parking requirements, it is becoming more popular to replace minimums and maximums with more flexible parking medians. Under median parking requirements, a certain percentage of the median requirement is allowed above or below the median by right. Above or below this by right increase or decrease the developer must provide documentation to justify the levels of parking. Overall, limiting parking supply might have unintended impacts should the actual parking demand exceed the anticipated level. If the parking supply is unable to accommodate demand, there might be spillover parking into adjacent uses and residential communities. In fact, many neighborhood residents will vehemently oppose any parking supply management strategy in fear that their neighborhood will become flooded by spillover parking with more cars bringing traffic and congestion. A potential solution to spillover parking is the creation and implementation of residential parking permit districts. Residential parking permit districts are designated areas in which the residents work with local jurisdictions to establish a program allowing them to park on the neighborhood streets, but restricts others from parking in these areas during certain hours. These districts are designed to reduce the impacts caused by students, customers, and Page 8

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management employees who do not park in the spaces provided in the nearby schools or businesses. In residential parking permit districts, permits could be made available to residents for a nominal fee the revenues from these fees could in turn be used to fund neighborhood enhancements. Finally, limiting parking supply will only be effective if there are concurrent efforts to control parking demand. Strategies to control parking demand, including transit investments, transit-oriented development and traditional neighborhood design policies, transportation demand management programs, unbundled parking, and pricing strategies, are discussed in this next portion of this section. Controlling Parking Demand One of the most effective ways of limiting parking supply is to reduce the needed supply through measures to control parking demand. In addition to the above mentioned supply management strategies, it is possible to reduce supply by influencing demand through investments in alternative modes of transportation, direct financial incentives for non-single occupancy vehicle use, pricing strategies, and policies supportive of transit-oriented development and traditional neighborhood design. This portion of this section outlines ways in which both the public and private sectors can influence parking demand, thus reducing the need for MetroLink St. Louis, Missouri and subsequent provision of parking. Transit Investments One of the most effective ways of reducing the demand for parking is by providing people with a viable alternative to the personal automobile. Therefore, in seeking to control the demand for transportation facilities tailored to the automobile, the public sector must make a commitment to expand and otherwise improve transit systems and services. There are various ways in which transit systems could be improved to better meet the needs of existing users and potentially attract new users, including expanding already existing routes for existing modes, adding new routes for existing modes, and creating new modes such as express bus service. Capital investments could also be made to improve maintenance of facilities, such as buses and trains, and to revitalize transit stations, bus stops, and their surrounding neighborhoods. In addition to these capital investments in routes, modes, and facilities, operational improvements such as scheduling changes can be instituted to offer more frequent and convenient service. There are several challenges to these investments in transit. Capital projects may be extremely costly and demand a substantial upfront investment of government resources. Moreover, extensive planning and coordination is important to ensure appropriate location of routes and stations this planning process adds additional time to what is already a time consuming process. As a result, it may take a long period of time before capital projects are fully operational. Finally, capital investments should be complemented by inducements such as marketing campaigns to help people realize the value of substituting mass transit for single occupancy vehicle use, improvements to fare structures, and enhanced passenger amenities. In July of 1993, MetroLink, a regional light rail system, began operating in St. Louis, Missouri. MetroLink s alignment stretches 34.3 miles from Lambert International Airport in St. Louis to Southwestern Illinois College in Belleville, Illinois. The system was built and is operated by Bi-State Development Agency as part of a fully integrated regional transportation system that also includes MetroBuses. The capital costs of the existing alignments was close to $800 million, of which the Federal Transit Administration paid about $600 million and the County governments paid the remaining portion. The federal contribution comes from its one-cent gasoline tax revenue base and covered all costs for design and engineering, construction, procurement, testing, start-up and project administration. The local match came from the asset value of the donated rights-of-way, structures, and facilities, and from a ½ cent sales tax. MetroLink operations are subsidized by sales taxes and passenger fares. The base fare is $1.25 service is free during lunch hours in the downtown district. In its first year of operation MetroLink carried nearly 9 million customers, almost double the projected ridership. In Fiscal Year 2001, 14.2 million customers rode MetroLink. It is estimated that 21% of MetroLink customers are former bus riders and the other 79% are new to transit. MetroLink has reduced vehicle miles traveled in the St. Louis region by as much as 139,100 miles per day, has saved 7,130 gallons of fuel each day, and in its first year of operation, reduced carbon emissions by between 4,500 and 9,600 metric tons (EPA TRAQ). Page 9

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Transit-Oriented Development and Traditional Neighborhood Design Policies To help foster pedestrian and transit friendly communities in which people do not need to rely exclusively on the personal automobile, local jurisdictions can develop policies that encourage transit-oriented development and traditional neighborhood design. Transit-oriented developments (TOD) are location-efficient, compact, walkable development projects with a balanced mix of residential, business, and institutional uses clustered around transit stations. Traditional neighborhood design (TND) developments are compact, mixed use, pedestrian-oriented communities that connect people to places and people to people. Both TODs and TND developments encourage the development of denser, mixed-use, pedestrian oriented areas where frequently visited services, jobs, housing, and, in the case of TOD, transit, are all easily accessible, reducing the reliance on the personal automobile and the subsequent need for parking facilities. Although the benefits of TOD and TND have been well documented, there are still many challenges to both types of projects including community fears that increased densities will increase traffic congestion and lower property values, and developer and lender fears that TOD and TND projects have higher costs and risks than conventional development projects. Moreover, in many jurisdictions, existing codes and ordinances do not allow for the construction of mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented developments as alternatives to conventional use-segregated developments or require a prohibitive number of zoning variances. Local jurisdictions can help enable TOD and TND by revising local zoning ordinances to include TOD and TND zones that allow for a mixing of uses and increased densities, can include affordable housing and reduced parking requirements, and prescribe design guidelines such as site development design criteria, street and streetscape design criteria, landscape design criteria, environmental standards, and scale requirements. Local jurisdictions can also help encourage TOD and TND projects by creating small area TOD and TND plans, making the necessary capital investments to support TOD and TND projects, and providing land assembly assistance and/or expedited permitting to developers wishing to undertake such projects. Transit-Oriented Development Zoning Concord, North Carolina The Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Concord, North Carolina, designates transit-oriented development (TOD) districts to encourage a mixture of residential, commercial, and employment opportunities within a specified radius of identified light rail station or other public transit stations. The TOD zone allows for more intense and efficient use of land for the mutual reinforcement of public investments and private development in transit areas. The TOD zones are divided into two distinct subdistricts TOD core and TOD periphery. All areas within ¼ mile of a transit station are classified as TOD core areas and all areas between ¼ and ½ mile of a transit station are classified as TOD periphery areas. The Unified Development Ordinance outlines different requirements for each of the subdistricts. The Ordinance allows for a mixing of residential and non-residential in both the TOD core and periphery areas, but does not prescribe the amount of land that needs to be allocated to each use. The Ordinance does regulate the density and floor area ratios in the TOD subdistricts. The following table illustrates this: Density (residential units per acre) Floor Area Ratio (non-residential units) Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum TOD core Parcels, 2 acres or more 16 20 0.70 1.20 Parcels, less than 2 acres 12 16 0.50 1.00 TOD periphery Parcels, 2 acres or more 12 16 0.50 1.00 Parcels, less than 2 acres 8 12 0.30 0.60 The Concord Ordinance also details parking regulations specific to the TOD zones. More specifically, the Ordinance reduces minimum parking requirements in portions of TOD zones, stating that if a site is within 500 feet of a light rail alignment, the minimum required parking spaces is 50% of what otherwise would be required by the Ordinance. In addition, the Ordinance prohibits all surface parking facilities in the TOD core areas and allows for surface parking for only commercial uses in TOD periphery areas. Page 10

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Traditional Neighborhood Design Zoning Austin, Texas The City of Austin s City Code allows for traditional neighborhood design by-right by designating traditional neighborhood zoning districts to encourage mixed use, compact, pedestrian-friendly development that diversifies and integrates land uses within close proximity to each other, and provides for the daily recreational and shopping needs of residents. As stipulated in the Austin Code, a traditional neighborhood district (TND) may consist of an area no less than 40 contiguous acres and not more than 250 contiguous acres. The City Code outlines five different types of areas in a TND Neighborhood Center Area, Mixed Residential Area, Neighborhood Edge Area, Workshop Area, and Employment Center Area. The Code outlines different land use, site development, and design regulations for each type of area. A TND must have one Neighborhood Center Area and at least one Mixed Residential Area. A Neighborhood Center Area serves as the focal point of a TND, containing retail shops, offices, banks, a post office, places of worship, a community center, attached residential dwellings, and other uses that meet the daily needs of the residents. Townhouse, condominium, and multifamily uses shall be allocated not less than 20% of the land area, commercial uses shall be allocated not less than 20% of the land area, and civic uses shall be allocated not less than 5% of the land area in a Neighborhood Center Area. In addition, a Neighborhood Center Area is pedestrian-oriented, encouraging movement between the neighborhood center and Mixed Residential Area, and must include a public square. A Mixed Residential Area includes a variety of residential land uses including single-family homes, duplexes, townhouses, and apartments. Residential retail, commercial, and civic uses may also be located in a Mixed Residential Area. A Mixed Residential Area must include formal and informal open spaces and promote pedestrian activity. Single family residential use shall be allocated not less than 50% and not more than 80% of the land area, duplex use shall be allocated not more than 10% of the land area, townhouse, condominium, and multi-family uses shall be allocated not less than 10% of the land area, commercial uses shall be allocated not less than one percent and not more than two percent of the land area, and civic uses shall be allocated not less than two percent of the land area in a Mixed Residential Area. In addition to a Neighborhood Center Area and at least one Mixed Residential Area, a TND may also have a Neighborhood Edge Area, a Workshop Area, or an Employment Center Area. A Neighborhood Edge Area is the least dense portion of a TND, with larger lots and greater setbacks than the rest of the area. A Workshop Area provides space for commercial and light industrial uses that are not appropriate for the Neighborhood Center Area, while an Employment Center Area provides space for large office and low-impact manufacturing uses. Under the Austin City Code, formal and informal open spaces and an interconnected network of streets and alleys are all required components of a TND. More specifically, the Austin City Code requires that not less than 20% of the gross land area of the TND be open space and that overall impervious cover for a TND be limited to 65% of the net site area or the amount permitted in the watershed, whichever is less. The Code details impervious cover limits for each of the five types of areas as well. Finally, the Austin City Code sets forth parking regulations specific to TND zones. Some of the more innovative TND parking regulations in the Code include the following: 1) A parking lot shall be located at the rear or side of a building (if at the side, appropriate screening must be provided; 2) A commercial use parking lot or garage must provide one bicycle parking space for every 10 motor vehicle parking spaces; 3) For parking in a Neighborhood Center Area, the required parking for a use may be located anywhere in the Neighborhood Center Area (community parking facilities are encouraged); 4) For parking in a Neighborhood Center Area, not more than 125% of the required parking for a use may be provided on-site; and 5) For parking in a Neighborhood Center Area, a commercial or a multi-family use may apply adjacent on-street parking toward the minimum parking requirements. Page 11

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Transportation Demand Management Programs and Transportation Management Associations According to Census 2000, it is estimated that 76% of workers sixteen years and over commute to work alone, 11% carpool, 5% take public transportation, and the remaining portion take another means or work from home. There are various reasons for this journey-to-work behavior people may not live (or work) in an area that is within close proximity to transit service, people may want to have their personal automobile at work to perform errands or in case of emergency, or they may have off-site meeting during the day and need their personal automobile to get between the work place and the meeting site. In addition to these various and valid reasons, the provision of free parking at the workplace has clearly played a large role in influencing journey-to-work behavior. Most people want parking at work to be easily accessible and convenient so getting to and from the car does not add additional time to the workday. In response to these needs, free on-site parking has become a fringe benefit and a factor in the ability to recruit and retain employees. Absent financial incentives for alternative travel modes to the single-occupancy vehicle and programs that alleviate the need for a personal automobile at work, solo driving will remain the overwhelmingly preferred mode of travel to work. Many employers and local jurisdictions have begun to implement transportation demand management (TDM) programs to influence travel behavior and induce people to take alternative modes to the personal automobile. TDM is a general term for programs that encourage a decrease in the demand for parking and other transportation tailored to the single-occupancy vehicle. TDM programs can either be employer-led programs designed to reduce the parking demand generated by employees, or publicly initiated programs to reduce the overall parking demand for all trips, not just journey to work trips. These programs might be direct financial incentives to use alternative travel modes or inducements such as preferential parking for carpools and vanpools, bicycle Commuter Choice Maryland amenities, shuttles from peripheral parking locations and transit stations, and car sharing programs. Many of these programs are described in greater detail below. Cash-Out Programs. Many employers provide their employees with free on-site parking. Although employees do not see the costs of parking directly, these costs usually are passed on to all employees in the form of lower wages. Therefore, regardless of car ownership or journey to work mode, most employees end up paying for the costs of on-site parking facilities. In other words, employees who use alternative modes to the single occupancy vehicle in the end cross-subsidize those who drive to work alone. Many employers are now establishing and implementing cash-out programs to provide subsidized employees with a choice of receiving free parking or foregoing free parking for a cash payment equaling the cash equivalent of free parking, to use transit or other alternatives to the single-occupancy vehicle. As more and more employees opt for cash out, employers will likely require less and less parking. In fact, a Canadian study conducted by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute showed that cash out reduces parking demand by 15-25%. However, the effectiveness of cash out typically depends on the availability of transit and other alternative modes to solo driving and the availability, or lack thereof, of free and unregulated parking supplies, especially where employees could still park after taking the cash out rather than taking an alternative to the single occupancy vehicle. Moreover, cash out is not as effective in reducing solo driving as Page 12 Commuter Choice Maryland is a State-sponsored initiative to encourage employers to implement transportation demand management programs that reduce the use of single-occupancy vehicles. Commuter Choice Maryland programs can help employers save on taxes, reduce parking demand and costs, and recruit and retain valuable employees. Employers participating in Commuter Choice Maryland can develop a transportation demand management program tailored to their own individual needs components of a Commuter Choice Maryland program might include employer-provided transit passes or vouchers, a vanpool program, a parking cash-out program, or a guaranteed ride home program. Employers implementing one of these programs through Commuter Choice Maryland can receive a Maryland state tax credit up to 50% for every dollar spent on commuter benefits programs. A maximum of $30 per participating employee per month applies to the state tax credit. In addition to the state tax credit, federal legislation passed as a part of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21 st Century allows participating employers to offer federal tax-free commuter benefits to employees. As of January 1, 2002, tax-free benefits for transit and vanpool expenses can be offered in any amount up to $100 per month.

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management charging employees for parking with no other compensation. More specifically, according to a model developed by Donald Shoup at the University of California-Los Angeles, cash out is about two thirds as effective as charging for parking. Some local jurisdictions may enact ordinances to require employers who offer subsidized parking to offer eligible employees the option of taking the cash equivalent of free parking, while other jurisdictions leave it up to the employer as to whether or not they will implement a cash-out program. Finally, it is important to note that cash-out is different from transit subsidies, which are direct payments to employees for use of public transportation and usually equal the cost of a monthly pass or a portion thereof. Peripheral Parking with Shuttles. Local jurisdictions and employers may wish to provide peripheral parking locations outside the main activity center and offer shuttle service from those locations to the main core and employment sites. Local jurisdictions and employers might also wish to provide shuttle service from transit stations to employment sites that are located in areas that are not wellserved by mass transit. Providing shuttle service from peripheral parking locations may not be effective in reducing single-occupancy vehicle use or overall parking demand, it might just shift where the necessary parking spaces are actually located from the main activity center to a more peripheral location. However, providing shuttle service from transit stations to employment sites can help reduce singleoccupancy use and parking demand since people living in close proximity to a transit station will now have a viable alternative to driving to work. Shuttle service could also provide guaranteed ride home on an as needed basis. Preferential Parking for Carpools and Vanpools. In privately owned parking facilities developers or employers might provide incentives for alternative modes of travel to the single occupancy vehicle by reserving close-in, secure, covered, or otherwise preferable parking spaces for high-occupancy vehicles. Local jurisdictions can do the same in publicly owned facilities and might consider enacting legislation to require operators of privately owned facilities to do so. For example, the Portland Municipal Code requires for office, industrial, and institutional uses where more than 20 parking spaces are required that 5 spaces or 5% of the spaces, whichever is less, must be reserved for carpools. Moreover, the carpool spaces must be the closest spaces to the building entrance Downtown Area Shuttle Baltimore, Maryland In March of 2002, Downtown Partnership of Baltimore began operating an employee shuttle program the Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH). DASH service provides Downtown employees with access to over 1,200 parking spaces near Ravens Stadium and a convenient, reliable commuter bus connection to various employment sites and the core of Downtown Baltimore. The monthly fee for the use of the parking facilities at Ravens Stadium and the shuttle service is $50. Employees that carpool are charged a monthly rate of $20. Currently, this monthly program is only available to employees whose employers have contracted with Downtown Partnership. Other Downtown employees, residents, and visitors can ride the shuttle throughout Downtown for a 50-cent fare, but will not be able to park in the Ravens Stadium parking lots. Triangle Transit Authority Rideshare Program Greater Triangle Region, North Carolina The Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), a regional public transportation authority serving Durham, Orange and Wake Counties in North Carolina, offers a rideshare program to provide vanpool and carpool services. In particular, as a part of the vanpool program, TTA provides a 15- passenger van to no fewer than seven commuters who live and work near each other and who share approximately the same work schedule. In addition to the vehicle, TTA pays for gas, and arranges and pays for maintenance. Vanpool riders pay a monthly fare based on monthly mileage. For example, a vanpool with a total monthly mileage of 520 miles pays in total $500.45 (or $35.75 per person based on a vanpool of 14). A vanpool with a total monthly mileage of 3145 miles pays in total $1,299.68. TTA offers a seat subsidy program to encourage the formation of vanpools. The rideshare program, among other TTA services and programs, is funded by a vehicle registration tax of up to $5 per registration, authorized by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1991, in addition to program revenues. Page 13

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management or elevator, but not closer than parking for the disabled. Local jurisdictions and employers could also promote carpooling or vanpooling by subsidizing vehicles or fuel costs. Bicycle Facilities and Amenities. Employers can encourage bicycling by providing bicycle parking or storage, showers, and lockers on-site. Local jurisdictions should consider requiring bicycle parking in zoning ordinances and reducing minimum parking requirements given the provision of bicycle parking over the required amount. For example, the Portland Municipal Code requires a minimum number of short term and long term bicycle spaces for residential and non residential uses. These requirements are intended to help meet the City s goal that 10% of all trips be made by bicycle. Moreover, bicycle parking may substitute for up to 25% of the required automobile parking for every 5 non-required bicycle parking spaces, the automobile requirement is reduced by one space. Car Sharing. Both the public and private sector in the United States are beginning to follow Europe s lead in instituting car sharing programs to grant residents or employees access to a car when they need it without incurring the fixed costs associated with owning and operating a personal automobile. According to Zipcar, a privately owned car sharing company, each car sharing vehicle replaces four to eight privately owned cars, thus reducing parking demand. Moreover, car sharing reduces vehicle miles traveled, thereby, helping to alleviate traffic congestion and improve air quality. According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, car sharing is most effective in high-density, mixed-use areas where there are a variety of travel choices, flexible parking requirements, and transportation management associations that encourage employers and employees to use alternative travel modes to the singleoccupancy vehicle. In car sharing arrangements, vehicle fleets are located in various areas throughout the jurisdiction, usually at transit nodes or in commercial districts. Residents can pay an annual membership fee and reserve a car by phone or on-line typically up to a year in advance. Members are then charged based on usage. This rate typically covers gas, maintenance, insurance, and parking. Some local jurisdictions are beginning to promote car sharing by reducing minimum parking requirements when developers or employers institute or participate in car sharing programs. For example, the Seattle Municipal Code allows for up to 5% of the total number of parking spaces provided in a project to be used to provide parking for vehicles operated by a Cityrecognized car sharing program. The number of required spaces may be reduced by one space for every parking space leased by a Cityrecognized car sharing program. Car Sharing Programs in Washington D.C. In December of 2001, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) launched a new car sharing program in the Washington D.C. area. WMATA is partnering with Flexcar, a privately owned, national car sharing company, to make cars available for hourly rental at or near selected Metro stations 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a week. Flexcar charges a one-time $25 member initiation fee and offers different payments plans, including hourly and mileage rates, based on user needs and usage. One option charges members a monthly fee of $35 for 5 hours, while another option charges a $525 monthly fee for 100 hours of use. Flexcar currently has 36 cars at 21 locations in the Washington region and has over 500 approved members. The program has plans to expand to 200 cars by 2003 to keep pace with the increasing demand. Local jurisdictions in the Washington region are helping to ensure the success of car sharing programs. In Arlington County, Virginia, the County s Commuter Assistance Program is offering a $500 subsidy for businesses to join Flexcar or Zipcar, another forprofit car sharing company operating in the Washington region. The City of Alexandria, Virginia, will reimburse up to $105 of membership and application fees for residents and up to $50 for business membership fees and half of each employee s application fee up to $20 for membership to Flexcar or Zipcar. As stated previously, TDM programs can be employer-led or publicly-initiated programs. However, it is becoming more common for TDM programs to be administered by transportation management associations. In fact, transportation management associations play an integral role in garnering support for and implementing demand management programs and district-based parking management strategies. Page 14

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Transportation management associations are independent, non-profit, member-controlled organizations that bring together employees, retailers, business owners, public sector representatives and others to address transportation issues and provide transportation services in a particular area. The main objectives of transportation management associations are to improve air quality, circulation, and the attractiveness of the urban environment through the promotion of alternative modes to the single-occupancy vehicle. To achieve these objectives, transportation management associations might provide discounted transit passes, shuttle bus services from off-site parking facilities, guaranteed ride home programs, bicycle facilities, car sharing programs, and information kiosks. Unbundled Parking The costs of parking are often bundled into the rent or purchase price for residential and commercial units and buildings. This practice assumes that all tenants and owners have the same parking demand; therefore, regardless of car ownership all tenants and owners bear the costs of parking through increased rents or inflated purchase prices. Including costs of parking in rents and purchase prices encourages automobile ownership and is a disincentive for using alternative transportation modes. On the other hand, separating the payment of parking from the rent payment or purchase price, also known as unbundling, can provide a more equitable allocation of costs by allowing tenants and owners to pay only for the parking they use and can reduce parking demand by making households pay the full cost of parking. Given that unbundling can reduce parking demand, development projects that unbundle parking or provide rebates to households who own fewer or no vehicles and will not use their allotted parking space or spaces could provide less parking than what otherwise might be required. Pricing Strategies One of the simplest ways to reduce parking demand is to charge users directly for the cost of parking. That is, parking prices for on-street meters and off-street parking facilities can be set to alter the cost of driving solo relative to travel alternatives, thereby influencing travel choice and reducing parking demand. In fact, according to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, parking pricing typically reduces parking demand by 10-30% compared to unpriced parking. There are various ways in which operators of publicly owned and privately owned parking facilities can price parking to differentiate prices among different users to achieve economic, strategic, and policy objectives. Such pricing strategies include time-based pricing, vehicle occupancy pricing, and vehicle size pricing. Page 15 A sign on a parking garage in Gaithersburg, Maryland, advertises free parking, encouraging automobile use. Time-Based Pricing. Time-based pricing can be implemented in on-street parking and off-street parking facilities to discourage long-term commuter parking and encourage turnover, which is usually necessary for parking facilities to cover costs and earn a reasonable return. More specifically, meter rates and parking prices in lots and structures can be set to increase over time to variable rates that become more expensive for each additional hour. Vehicle Occupancy Pricing. Vehicle occupancy pricing can be established in off-street parking facilities to encourage the use of high occupancy vehicles. More specifically, rates can be set at or above market rates for solo drivers, while carpool or vanpool rates are discounted or free. Vehicle Size Parking. Vehicle size parking can be established in off-street parking facilities to encourage the use of compact cars, which demand a smaller land area for parking. More specifically, rates can be set at or above market rates for sport utility vehicles and other vehicles that might take up more than one space and can be set below market rate for compact vehicles. To complement these parking pricing strategies, local jurisdictions could levy parking taxes on operators of off-street parking facilities. These taxes are typically passed on to users in the form of higher parking rates. For example, in Baltimore, Maryland, the Baltimore City Parking Authority collects a parking tax equal to

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management 11% of a parking facility s gross transactions and $14 per month per monthly user. Moreover, local jurisdictions could implement and enforce time limits on meter parking to encourage turnover in commercial districts and discourage long-term commuter parking. There are several challenges to implementing parking pricing, parking taxes, and time limits. First of all, it is generally difficult to impose parking pricing where parking is currently free. Moreover, if there are uncontrolled parking supplies nearby, users can circumvent paying for parking and park in those available spaces. Finally, as discussed previously in this paper, pricing strategies should only be implemented in areas where there is a viable alternative to the personal automobile and where the market is sufficiently strong so that pricing will not lead to economic dislocation. Challenges to Controlling Parking Demand The biggest challenge to controlling parking demand is that despite investments in transit infrastructure, parking pricing policies, and other demand management strategies, many people will still choose the single occupancy vehicle as their primary travel mode. Since the middle of the last century the American public indeed has had a love affair with the personal automobile it is entrenched in the American way of life. Getting people to change their behavior has proven rather difficult. Demand management strategies must be complemented with aggressive marketing campaigns and education and outreach efforts to make people realize the value of substituting alternative modes to the personal automobile. Moreover, in developing and revising parking policies and programs, both the public and private sectors need to engage all of the stakeholders in the process so that the general public has a sense of collective responsibility over the success of such policies and programs. The following section is a summary of some of the supply and demand managements strategies proposed in this section that the public and private sectors might wish to include in parking policies and programs. Possible Strategies Local Jurisdictions Conduct a comprehensive review of parking requirements. Reduce parking requirements for specific locational and demographic factors. Reduce parking requirements when TDM programs are implemented. Reduce parking requirements in exchange for fees in lieu. Adopt maximums to complement minimum parking requirements or establish parking medians. Allow for shared parking at mixed-use development projects and in mixed-use areas. Designate parking management districts and develop area parking management plans for those districts. Parking management plans might include areawide parking caps, regulation of on-site parking facilities through parking ordinances, shared parking arrangements, construction of centralized publicly owned parking facilities, and pricing strategies. Allow landscaped reserves to meet parking requirements. Establish residential parking permit programs. Revise local zoning ordinances to create transit oriented development and traditional neighborhood design zones that allow a mixing of uses, increased densities, affordable housing, reduced parking requirements, and pedestrian oriented and environmentally friendly design. Enact ordinances to require employers who offer subsidized parking to offer eligible employees the option of taking the cash equivalent of free parking. Page 16

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Form public-private partnerships to provide shuttle service from peripheral parking locations and transit stations to employment site and the central business district. Require a certain percentage of spaces to be designated for carpools or vanpools. Form public-private partnerships to provide vanpool services or car sharing programs. Require development projects to include bicycle parking and reduce minimum parking requirements given the provision of bicycle parking over the required amount. Encourage unbundling of housing and parking costs. Set parking prices in municipal structures to benefit priority users such as high occupancy vehicles and compact cars. Implement time-based pricing to set prices higher during peak periods and increase over time. Provide signs, maps, and brochures to provide accurate information to users on parking facilities and availability. Elicit public involvement and include all stakeholders from the start in planning parking policies and programs. Developers Provide an appropriate amount of parking given carefully estimated parking demand, as opposed to oversupplying parking. Seek opportunities to share parking between uses within a development project or with complementary uses in close proximity. Pursue transit-oriented development and traditional neighborhood design projects to create compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly, walkable communities with viable alternatives to the personal automobile. Reserve close in, secure, covered, or otherwise preferable parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. Provide bicycle parking facilities including racks and lockers. Unbundle the cost of parking from the rent or purchase price of residential and commercial units or buildings. Charge users for the cost of parking and set parking rates to benefit priority users such as high occupancy vehicles and compact cars. Employers Offer employees eligible for subsidized parking the option of taking the cash equivalent of free parking. Provide transit subsidies or discounted transit passes. Work with the public sector and/or other area employers to provide shuttle service from peripheral parking locations and/or transit stations. Work with the public sector and/or other area employers to develop and implement vanpool or car sharing programs. Reserve close in, secure, covered, or otherwise preferable parking spaces for carpools and vanpools. Page 17

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Management Provide bicycle parking facilities including racks and lockers and provide bicycle amenities such as showers and clothes lockers on-site. Implement a guaranteed ride home program. Provide information kiosks or bulletin boards to inform employees of ridesharing opportunities and programs. Charge users for the cost of parking and set parking rates to benefit priority users such as high occupancy vehicles and compact cars. Page 18

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design PARKING DESIGN Since the advent of the personal automobile, the American landscape has become predominantly a habitat for cars, with streets, parking facilities, and other auto-oriented uses dominating the built environment. Parking facilities in particular have become an omnipresent feature of the American landscape, consuming land and resources, inhibiting the functioning of natural systems, creating dead gaps in what otherwise might be vibrant commercial areas, and creating conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. This adverse impact on the walkability of communities is a particular challenge to creating lively, mixed use places with a unique sense of identity attractive places where people want to linger, to gather, and to return over and over. It is precisely these kinds of walkable places that are essential to the success of smart growth development strategies. This section of this paper proposes best practices to reverse the negative impacts parking facilities have traditionally had on the environment and the character of urban places. The best practices outlined in this section are organized by the objective each strategy or practice aims to achieve. The five main overarching objectives are: Design sites such that vehicles are not the dominant feature; Provide necessary parking without large expanses of pavement; Minimize runoff from parking lots utilizing techniques to return surface water to the ground; Encourage vibrant street level activity; and Create a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicles. The three types of parking facilities on-street parking, surface parking lots, and parking structures are each appropriate in different settings and under different circumstances, and all play integral roles in shaping the character of the built environment. For each proposed best practice, the type of parking the strategy applies to is listed. The final portion of this section briefly discusses some of the challenges to implementing smart parking design best practices. OBJECTIVE: Design sites such that vehicles are not the dominant feature. No one wants acres of pavement or blank walls dominating the streetscape, yet parking needs to be convenient, safe, and accessible. Given the adverse impacts of the visual prominence of parking facilities, local jurisdictions and developers alike should seek innovative design strategies to ensure that parking facilities do not become the dominant feature of the streetscape. The following are some best practices that might be considered. Location. The location of parking facilities behind buildings is vital in creating more welcoming and pedestrian-friendly streetscapes that will attract users over and over again. The desire for safe, convenient, and accessible parking has typically led to the placement of parking areas in front of buildings. For example, in retail projects, shoppers typically want to enter and exit the parking facility with ease and want to avoid the frustration and stress associated with having to drive around and look for parking. In response to these needs, developers have typically provided parking areas in front of retail uses where it is highly visible and readily available. However, the placement of parking facilities in front of buildings has an effect on people as they walk or even drive by. Parking facilities in front of buildings create physical and psychological barriers to the building, as opposed to buildings placed close to the street, framing the public space and inviting people in. Indeed, from an urban design perspective, parking considerations should be secondary to the design and placement of buildings on the site. Parking facilities can be located in the interior of blocks and concealed by liner buildings with retail, offices, and housing. Parking is then This parking structure in Bethesda, Maryland, is embedded in the block, obscured from street activity by more active uses. Page 19

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design found behind the building, accessible yet out of view. Signage could be used to direct users to the parking facility. And since for safety reasons developers typically want a single entrance, wayfinding will have to incorporated to get people from the parking area to the entrance, which may be in the front of the building. Moreover, on-street parking could be provided in the front of the building to provide visible and convenient auto access. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Screening and Landscaping. As discussed previously, if at all possible, parking facilities should be placed behind buildings in the interior of blocks. For facilities placed to the front or side of buildings, there are various ways to screen parked cars from street level activity, thereby providing the necessary parking without overly compromising urban design. Parking facilities, including lots and structures, could be located where the site topography can help conceal them. Integrating parking facilities into site topography might also limit the impact a project may have on the functioning of natural systems. With respect to parking lots, when a parking lot abuts a public street the parked cars should be screened from public street frontage to obscure a majority of the parked cars. Screening can be continuous landscaping, attractive fencing or stone walls, among other materials. Overall, the buffer between the parking lot and the street should be no less than 15 feet wide this liberal width should help to encourage the placement of parking lots behind buildings versus along the street. Finally, landscaping on the periphery of a parking facility and within parking areas can be used to soften the appearance of a parking facility from the street. More specifically, expanses of parking should be broken up with landscaped islands and planted strips, which include shade trees and shrubs. Such landscaping provides a canopy cover and reduces the urban heat island effect in the summer. Landscaping not only provides shade on hot days, absorbs carbon dioxide, and reduces pollutants emitted by vehicles as they sit in the sun, but also breaks up the visual impact, making the parking lot feel smaller and less overwhelming. Applicability: Parking lots and structures These two figures from the Henderson (Nevada) Development Code illustrate two parking lot landscaping techniques terminal islands and divider medians. According to the interior parking lot landscaping standards in the Code, terminal islands must be provided at the end of each parking row, and divider medians between abutting rows of parking spaces are encouraged. Moreover, the Code stipulates the following: 1) for parking lots with 5-100 spaces, 1 tree must be planted for every 10 spaces; 2) each parking space must be located within 40 feet of a tree; and 3) at least 10 percent of the interior area of a parking lot must be devoted to landscape planting areas. Architectural Treatments. With respect to parking structures, there are various ways to help integrate parking structures with their surroundings, particularly through scale, materials, colors, and style. Architectural treatments can be used to screen cars and relate to the design of adjacent buildings. The architectural treatments should be divided into 30 increments to better integrate the parking structure with the scale and character of adjacent buildings and to provide the visual breaks to hold the interest of walkers passing by. Façade elements around the entry to the structure should be emphasized to reduce the visual prominence of the structure entry. Applicability: Parking structures OBJECTIVE: Provide necessary parking without large expanses of pavement. According to the Center for Watershed Protection, as much as 65% of the total impervious surface cover in the American landscape are surfaces designed for cars including, but not limited to, streets, parking lots, and Page 20

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design driveways. The paving over of the American landscape is clearly unsustainable, consuming land and resources and creating huge volumes of stormwater runoff that tax the capacity of sewer systems and degrade water quality in streams and other waterways. Local jurisdictions and developers alike should determine ways in which they can provide the necessary parking, while minimizing the amount of acreage that is converted to parking. The following are some best practices that might minimize the amount of pavement required for a parking facility while allowing the most cars to park on the site. Provision of On-Street Parking. On-street parking provides convenient access to adjacent uses and provides the best possible option to visitors since it offers the shortest possible time between stopping and shopping. Moreover, the provision of on-street parking can lessen the need for parking lots and structures, which convert a significant amount of acreage to parking. There are three different types of on-street parking head-in, angle, and parallel. Each type of on-street parking has its pros and cons. Both head-in and angle parking can provide for more cars than a parallel parking configuration, but both require a considerable amount of right-of-way and, therefore, necessitate wider streets. Moreover, both head-in parking and angled parking create the potential for a greater number of traffic accidents, as drivers must back out of spots into the flow of traffic. Therefore, both of these types of parking are best designed on streets with slow moving traffic. On the other hand, parallel parking decreases the potential for accidents and requires a narrower right-of-way; however, parallel parking accommodates fewer cars than the other types of on-street parking. While onstreet parking head-in, angled, or parallel may not fully accommodate the amount of parking necessary, it does provide visible and convenient auto access and can satisfy short-term parking needs. To complement on-street parking, development projects can incorporate other parking facilities, namely surface lots and structures, to accommodate longer-term parking needs. Applicability: On-street parking King Farm, a New Town in Rockville, Maryland, utilizes on-street parking to accommodate required parking spaces and alleviate the need for parking lots and structures. This street uses both parallel parking and angled parking. Construction of Structures Rather Than Lots. Building vertically reduces the acreage of land converted to parking, thereby, reducing impervious surfaces. However, the type of parking facility lot or structure in a development site is usually determined by balancing the cost of land against the cost of constructing parking. In urban areas where land costs are at a premium, it is more costeffective to build a parking structure than to build a surface parking lot. In suburban areas, the availability and low cost of land make surface parking lots more cost effective than parking structures. In these suburban areas, absent significant incentives to defray the costs of structured parking, it is unlikely that structured parking will become the norm. The following section of this paper on parking financing outlines some incentives and financing programs for structured parking. Applicability: Parking structures Washingtonian Center, a retail and entertainment center in Gaithersburg, Maryland, includes a large structured parking facility to accommodate the necessary parking. This view is of the back of the structure; the front of the structure incorporates retail uses on the first floors. Page 21

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design Automated Parking Structures. Automated parking structures have the potential to change the dynamics of land use, significantly reducing the demand for land devoted to parking and making more land available for revenue generating purposes. Automated parking can squeeze up to two times the number of cars in the same space as a conventional garage or, in other words, accommodate the same number of cars in half the space, and can be built on a site as small as 60 feet by 60 feet, in structures up to 20 stories high, above or below ground. These facilities are able to be so space-efficient because they operate using a computerized network of rails and pallets that lift and carry cars from the entrance bay to available slots with no human intervention. In addition to reducing the amount of land devoted to parking, there are many other benefits to automated parking. Automated parking makes parking safer and more convenient, eliminating the risk of car damage, theft, or personal injury, and reducing the water and air pollution attributed to exhaust fumes and impervious surfaces. Moreover, automated parking structures have complete flexibility in the design of the façade; therefore, they can be easily incorporated into existing urban design. In terms of costs, automated parking is now becoming a price-competitive and viable alternative to traditional ramp garages, as land costs in urban areas are at a premium. Automated structures have lower land acquisition costs since they require less land, construction costs are typically about the same as conventional above ground structures, and operating costs are somewhat lower since many automated structure are completely computerized and only require one person on-site. One potential drawback to automated parking is that it might make parking too efficient, leading to an increased driving demand. Applicability: Parking structures Reduced Stall Dimensions and Compact Car Spaces. Reducing the size of parking stall dimensions overall and dedicating a certain percentage of stalls to compact cars can reduce impervious surface cover. While the trend toward larger sport utility vehicles is often cited as a barrier to implementing stall minimization, stall width requirements in most local ordinances are much larger than the widest sport utility vehicles (Center for Watershed Protection). Reducing stall dimensions and dedicating compact car spaces will only be effective in reducing the footprint of parking structures if the number of parking spaces per floor is limited and additional spaces are accommodated by building additional floors. Applicability: On-street parking and parking lots and structures Tandem/Stacked or Valet Parking. Providing the required parking spaces in tandem or stacked parking arrangements or offering valet parking service reduces the amount of land devoted to parking. The City of Portland, Oregon, allows stacked parking or valet parking if an attendant is present to move vehicles. If stacked parking is used for required parking spaces, some form of guarantee must be filed with the City of Portland to ensure that an attendant will be present when the parking facility is in operation. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Alternative Pavers. Utilizing alternative pavers that permit water to penetrate reduces the overall impervious surface coverage and creates less stormwater runoff. Alternatives to concrete and asphaltic concrete include gravel, cobble, wood mulch, brick, grass pavers, turf blocks, natural stone, pervious concrete, and porous asphalt. Alternative pavers may not be ideal depending on site-specific characteristics such as climate, soil type, and traffic volume. However, they are recommended for overflow areas and can be used in cross walks and stalls to create a break in the paved area, thereby, facilitating groundwater recharge. Applicability: Parking lots Multiple Lots. Breaking up large parking lots into two or more areas can reduce the total amount of impervious surface and disconnect paved surfaces, thereby reducing stormwater runoff and facilitating The use of alternative pavers in overflow areas reduces impervious surface coverage and helps facilitate groundwater recharge. Credit: Center for Watershed Protection Page 22

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design groundwater recharge. This practice also breaks up the perceived visual mass of parking facilities and can help to integrate big box uses, such as grocery stores, into neighborhood shopping districts. Applicability: Parking Lots OBJECTIVE: Minimize runoff from parking facilities utilizing techniques to return surface water to the ground. Parking facilities have serious impacts on the functioning of natural systems, depleting the water supply and degrading water quality. Traditional stormwater management systems carry and discharge runoff from parking facilities directly into streams and rivers, thereby preventing ground water recharge and dumping pollutant loads into our waterways. Local jurisdictions and developers should seek innovative ways to manage stormwater runoff that support the functioning of natural systems. The following are some best practices that might be considered. Some of these practices may be more expensive upfront than traditional approaches; however, the costs may be offset by the reduced need for stormwater facilities and reduced maintenance costs. Low Impact Development Techniques. Local jurisdictions and developers are increasingly turning to Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to manage stormwater on-site. In particular, LID techniques can be critical in controlling the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff generated from the impervious surface of parking facilities. LID uses a wide array of methods to retain, detain, filter, recharge, and pass runoff through decentralized, distributed, small-scale controls to reestablish the predevelopment volume of runoff, recharge, storage, and evaporation on a development site. Ultimately, LID seeks to protect and restore important ecological and hydrological functions. Major components of LID include: 1) conservation of forests, natural vegetation, streams, wetlands, and open space, to the greatest extend practicable; 2) minimization measures including reduced clearing and grading, saving infiltratable soils, reducing or disconnecting impervious surfaces, reforesting, and reducing the use of pipes, curbs, and gutters; 3) concentration of runoff in open drainage systems and vegetative swales to slow down runoff, reduce discharges, and encourage more infiltration and evaporation; 4) integration of retention, detention, filtration, storage, and capture of runoff systems into the site; and 5) promotion of pollution prevention measures. With respect to parking facilities, common LID techniques used to control stormwater runoff include open sections, swales, and bioretention areas. Open sections encourage sheet flow to open channels where pollutants are removed through infiltration and vegetation/soil filtering prior to discharge, as opposed to the traditional curb and gutter methods that convey stormwater runoff and associated pollutant loads into streams. Vegetative swales direct stormwater into shallow bioretention areas that temporarily detain the water, facilitating infiltration into the subsurface and slowing and cleaning the remaining stormwater before it is discharged into waterways. Proper plant material selection is critical to the success of these measures. The effective use of LID techniques can significantly reduce the cost of providing stormwater management by eliminating the use of costly stormwater management infrastructure including ponds, pipes, curbs, gutters and roadway paving, among others. In fact, LID can reduce stormwater and site development design construction and maintenance costs by 25-30% compared to conventional approaches (Prince George s County Department of Environmental Resources). Applicability: Parking lots Green Roofs. Some developers of parking structures are beginning to incorporate green roofs on parking structures to retain and naturally filter stormwater runoff, thereby improving water quality. According to Roofscapes, Inc., green roofs can retain 50-60% of the total annual runoff volume of a roof, reducing the need for costly stromwater management systems. Underground parking structures often have lawns and parks planted on top. Above ground parking structures could also incorporate roof systems of vegetation, soil, drainage, and waterproof membranes to alleviate environmental problems including storm water runoff and the urban heat island effect. Additional benefits of greenroofs include improved livability of the urban environment by buffering noise, reducing glare, and offering an aesthetic alternative to asphalt roofing. Green roofs are more costly than traditional roof systems; however, the associated costs could be offset by the reduced need for stormwater facilities. Applicability: Parking structures Page 23

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design OBJECTIVE: Encourage vibrant street level activity. Local jurisdictions and developers often view parking facilities as generators of economic development, as adequate parking can enhance the marketability of development projects to tenants and customers. However, the inappropriate location and unattractive design of parking facilities can actually constrain economic development, creating dead gaps of inactivity in what otherwise might be vibrant commercial environments. Local jurisdictions and developers should seek ways in which the necessary parking can be accommodated, at the same time as the street activity is enlivened. The following are some best practices that might be considered. Provision of On-Street Parking. On-street parking can play a vital part of a streetscape, fostering a more vibrant pedestrian commercial environment. More specifically, on-street parking provides a mental and physical buffer between pedestrians on a sidewalk and cars on a busy street. The public safety aspects of on-street parking are discussed in greater detail under the following objective on creating a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicles. Applicability: On-street parking Location. Parking lots and structures should be located behind buildings rather than in front of them so they do not dominate street frontage, thereby creating a more welcoming pedestrian-friendly streetscape. The location of parking facilities was discussed in greater detail under the objective on designing sites such that vehicles are not the dominant feature. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Bethesda Row, a mixed-use retail and entertainment project in Bethesda, Maryland, incorporates on-street parking to foster a more vibrant pedestrian commercial environment. Retail and Commercial Uses. Parking structures with frontage along streets should provide retail and commercial uses along the street in order to enhance the pedestrian experience and create street level activity. Newsstands and coffee shops typically are successful, in addition to government offices, particularly public safety and police sub-stations, which act as crime deterrents. Incorporating retail and commercial uses in parking structures has the added benefit of generating additional sources of revenue through the lease or sale of space. This is discussed in greater detail in the section on parking financing. Applicability: Parking structures OBJECTIVE: Create a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as vehicles. Cars are typically at odds with pedestrians and bicyclists on the roadway and this is no different in parking facilities. Local jurisdictions and developers should seek design strategies to ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety, without compromising the safe and expeditious movement of cars. The following are some best practices that might be considered. Provision of On-Street Parking. On-street parking is typically used in tandem with other street design elements to ensure the safe co-existence of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Washingtonian Center in Gaithersburg, Maryland, incorporates retail and commercial uses on the first floor of the parking structure. Page 24

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design Such street design elements are commonly referred to as traffic calming measures. Traffic calming is a method of reducing traffic speeds and volumes and/or cut through traffic by instituting both physical measures such as traffic circles, speed humps, chicanes, and chokers, and operational measures such as increased police enforcement, speed displays, and community speed watch programs. Ultimately, these traffic calming measures are intended to reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use and improve conditions for non-motorized street users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. On-street parking is one type of traffic calming measure and can be used in tandem with other measures to slow vehicle traffic and provide a buffer between moving cars and pedestrians and bicyclists. Applicability: On-street parking Limit Curb Cuts. Curb cuts tend to increase pedestrian exposure to moving vehicles, limit opportunities for landscaping, eliminate on-street parking spaces, and aggravate traffic control. Limiting the number of curb cuts can help ensure pedestrian and bicycle safety, while allowing for safe and expeditious movement to and from the street system. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Pedestrian Corridors. Pedestrians should not have to walk through parking facilities where they must be on constant guard for moving vehicles. Parking facilities should incorporate a clearly defined pedestrian pathway from the public sidewalk, bus stops and on-street parking, through parking lots, to building entrances. The pedestrian pathway should be landscaped and or delineated by nonasphaltic material in a different color or texture from the parking area to enhance pedestrian safety and improve the appearance of the parking lot. Pedestrian pathways through parking areas to stairwells and elevators should also be incorporated in parking structures. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Surface parking lots at King Farm in Rockville, Maryland, incorporate brick pavers to distinguish pedestrian walkways from the parking area. Pedestrian and Bicycle Entrances. Enhancing the pedestrian and bicycle entry to parking lots and structures helps buffer pedestrians and bicyclists from cars and reduce the relative importance of the vehicle entry. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Bicycle Parking. Providing for bicycle parking in prominent, convenient, and secure locations, might encourage people to bike between places as opposed to driving their personal automobiles. Applicability: On-street parking and parking lots and structures Signage. Parking guidance systems can help alleviate congestion and enhance pedestrian safety. A parking guidance system that shows drivers where they can find available parking spaces in a given area or parking structure can help drivers pay more attention to pedestrian and bicyclists instead of Absent adequate bicycle parking facilities, bicyclists may park their bicycles in improper focusing on looking for an available parking locations. space. Parking guidance systems also help people avoid the stress and frustration involved with driving around looking for parking. Applicability: Parking lots and structures Page 25

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design Lighting. The way parking lot lighting is designed can make the difference between an attractive and safe place or a neighborhood eyesore. Parking lots should utilize low-angle, cut-off fixtures to better direct light to those areas where it is needed. Parking lot lighting often involves balancing the need to provide adequate lighting to ensure personal safety with the concerns of neighboring property owners about glare and spillover lighting. Low-angle, cut-off fixtures minimize glare, spillover effects, and light pollution, at the same time as ensuring there is adequate lighting. Adequate lighting creates a safe environment for pedestrians and vehicles, particularly at night, and can add an aesthetic quality to a project. Applicability: On-street parking and parking lots Challenges to Smart Parking Design As a major urban land use, the design and layout of parking facilities should be of primary importance to local planners. However, local jurisdictions have actually inhibited innovative parking design through a bewildering mix of shortsighted and outdated regulations that govern the development process. These regulations, codified in various documents, including zoning ordinances, parking and street standards, and stormwater management guidelines, are difficult to decipher and sometimes contradictory. As a result, regulations can discourage developers from incorporating innovative parking design in development projects, as they are concerned about the time and money it might cost to navigate through the approval process. Developers recognize that the construction, operation, and maintenance of parking facilities are costly components of development projects, and that innovative design solutions can translate into reduced development and maintenance costs and allow projects to operate at a greater floor area ratio, thereby increasing the profitability of the project. Local planners need to take a closer look at the regulations that govern parking design to enable and encourage innovation. Developers can pressure local governments to do so and continue to seek innovative design solutions that may cost more money upfront but could translate into higher densities and more successful projects. Possible Strategies This section has provided recommendations to developers and local governments on the integration of parking facilities into the urban fabric to minimize environmental and aesthetic impacts. Although these recommendations have been structured under the specific objectives they aim to achieve, many of these recommended design strategies actually support multiple objectives. The chart on Page 28 summarizes the recommended strategies and illustrates the respective objectives and types of parking facilities to which each recommendation applies. The following is a list of recommendations for local governments to consider that support the recommended innovative parking design strategies discussed in this section: Adopt minimum setbacks from street to parking lot to encourage placement behind buildings Reduce minimum parking requirements for structures and lots placed behind buildings Revise parking design guidelines to require screening for parking lots and architectural treatments for parking structures Revise design guidelines to require landscaping (ratio of trees to parking spaces or certain % canopy cover at maturity) Revise street standards to require on-street parking where applicable Reduce minimum parking requirements if on-street parking accessible Reduce minimum parking requirements for structures Revise stall dimensions Require a certain percent of spaces designated for compact cars Page 26

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design Allow tandem/stacked parking and valet parking to meet minimum parking requirements Revise stormwater management guidelines to enable and encourage innovative stormwater management systems Reduce minimum parking requirements for implementation of innovative stormwater management systems (alternative pavers, swales, bioretention areas, open sections, green roofs) Reduce minimum parking requirements for incorporation of retail and commercial uses in parking structures Require bicycle parking Reduce minimum parking requirements for bicycle facilities Revise design guidelines to require pedestrian pathway landscaped or delineated by non-asphaltic material Revise design guidelines to require low-angle, cut-off lighting fixtures Page 27

Smart Growth Parking Best Practices Parking Design Design sites such that vehicles are not the dominant feature Provide parking without large expanses of pavement OBJECTIVES Minimize runoff from parking facilities Encourage vibrant street level activity Create a safe and comfortable environment TYPE OF PARKING FACILITY On-Street Parking Parking Lot Locate facility behind building X X X X X Integrate facility into site topography X X X X X Screen facility through landscaping or X X X X architectural treatments Landscape interior parking areas X X X X Provide on-street parking X X X X Construct parking structures X X X Build automated parking structures X X X Reduce stall dimensions X X X X X Provide compact car spaces X X X X X Incorporate tandem/stacked or valet X X X X parking Use alternative pavers X X X Break up large parking lots X X X X Utilize open sections X X X Incorporate vegetative swales and X X X bioretention areas on-site Construct a green roof X X Incorporate retail and commercial uses X X X Limit curb cuts X X X X Provide clearly defined pedestrian X X X corridors Enhance bicycle and pedestrian entrances X X X X Provide bicycle parking facilities X X X X Implement a parking guidance system X X X Utilize low-angle, cut-off lighting X X X Parking Structure Page 28

296 Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements Vinit Mukhija and Donald Shoup Most local governments off-street parking requirements promote quantity over quality, focusing on ensuring an ample supply of parking. This has undesirable consequences for the built environment. Parking lots and parking structures routinely overwhelm the architecture and urban design of even the best buildings and neighborhoods. We argue that planners should worry less about the quantity of parking, and pay more attention to its quality. Through examples of zoning reforms adopted by some cities, we show how regulating the quality of parking has the potential to improve urban design. Vinit Mukhija (vmukhija@ucla.edu) is an assistant professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). He is an architect and planner, and his research focuses on housing and the built environment. He is the author of Squatters as Developers? Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai (Ashgate, 2003). Donald Shoup, FAICP (shoup@ucla.edu) is a professor of urban planning at UCLA. His recent research has centered on parking as a key link between land use and transportation. In 2005 the American Planning Association published his book, The High Cost of Free Parking. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 72, No. 3, Summer 2006. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL. Most local off-street parking requirements emphasize quantity over quality. Local governments often have minimum parking requirements that overwhelm the physical landscape with an excessive supply of unattractive parking, 1 but relatively few impose design requirements on parking lots and parking structures. Off-street parking requirements focus on the ratio of parking spaces to floor area, usually neglecting the consequences for urban design. As a result, most parking lots are asphalt breaks in the urban fabric, and most parking structures present blank walls to the street. Parking lots and garages tend to interrupt the streetscape, expand the distances between destinations, and undermine walkability (see Figures 1 and 2). We argue that planners should worry less about the quantity of parking provided and should pay more attention to its quality. Off-street parking requirements also reduce architectural quality. Architects often complain that they must shoehorn a building into the space remaining after the parking requirement has been satisfied, compromising the design. Thus reducing or removing parking requirements can make better design possible, and cities can use quality-based parking requirements within an urban design framework to reinforce the desired character of each neighborhood. The market gives developers a strong incentive to provide adequate parking because lenders are unwilling to finance projects with inadequate parking and tenants are unwilling to rent space in them. But the market provides less incentive to improve parking design because many of the benefits of better parking design accrue to the community rather than to the property owner. Developers are more likely to spend money on a marble-veneered lobby (which will increase the value of the building) than on landscaping the parking lot (which will increase the value of the whole neighborhood). In this article we show how planners can use the following five strategies to improve urban design. 1. Deregulate or limit the number of parking spaces. 2. Improve the location of parking. 3. Improve the design of surface parking. 4. Improve the design of parking structures. 5. Improve the design of residential garages. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd., publisher.

Mukhija and Shoup: Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements 297 Figure 1. Off-street parking in Los Angeles. Shifting the focus of parking requirements from quantity to quality will help planners to play a more constructive role in shaping the built environment. Eliminating Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements Minimum parking requirements in zoning ordinances would not be needed if they did not increase the parking supply beyond what the market would provide (Shoup, 2005). Such requirements create a self-perpetuating cycle in which increasing the supply of parking leads to increased demand. Plentiful parking encourages people to buy more cars, and more cars lead cities to require even more parking spaces. Parking lots consume land that could be put to higher-value uses, such as housing, and they detract from the traditional pedestrian ambience of cities. As Alexander, Ishikawa, and Silverstein (1977) wrote 30 years ago: We suspect that when the density of cars passes a certain limit, and people experience the feeling that there are too many cars, what is really happening is that subconsciously they feel that the cars are overwhelming the environment, that the environment is no longer theirs, that they have no right to be there, that it is not a place for people, and so on. After all, the effect of the cars reaches far beyond the mere presence of the cars themselves. They create a maze of driveways, garage doors, asphalt and concrete surfaces, and building elements which people cannot use. When the density goes beyond the limit, we suspect that people feel the social potential of the environment has disappeared. (p. 122) To preserve and enhance walkability, Alexander and his coauthors suggested that only 9% of a city s land should be devoted to parking, though there is little empirical basis for this number. Some cities, such as Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia, have eliminated parking requirements in

298 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2006, Vol. 72, No. 3 Figure 2. Off-street parking in San Francisco. Source: San Francisco Planning Department their downtowns to make them more accommodating to pedestrians. Other cities have reduced or eliminated parking requirements adjacent to public transit stops. An ordinance in Portland, Oregon states, There is no minimum parking requirement for sites located less than 500 feet from a transit street with 20-minute peak hour service (City of Portland, 2006). Removing off-street parking requirements can also ease adaptive reuse and historic preservation. Older buildings rarely meet current minimum parking requirements, and as a consequence many stunning buildings are demolished and replaced by ordinary structures that do meet the requirements. Apart from the irreplaceable loss of heritage, such demolition limits the possibility of a rich and varied collage of buildings from different time periods. 2 To encourage the conversion of older, economically distressed office buildings to apartments and lofts, some cities exempt these buildings from parking requirements if they are converted to residential uses. Los Angeles, for example, does not require downtown buildings built before 1974 to add parking spaces if they are converted to dwelling units, guest rooms, or joint live-work quarters. 3 Minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure an ample parking supply, and they imply that parking is a problem only when there is not enough of it. But too much parking also creates problems. Most major U.S. cities, including Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco, regulate the maximum rather than the minimum number of parking spaces in their downtowns. Carmel, California, which is famous for its attractive downtown, is an extreme, but highly successful, example of limits on parking. Zoning helps to maintain Carmel s unique pedestrian ambience by prohibiting off-street parking spaces in the central commercial district: On-site parking is prohibited in the central commercial (CC) land use district. This policy reduces the need for curb cuts in sidewalks and the interference with free pedestrian traffic flow that would result from an excessive number of driveways. This policy is intended

Mukhija and Shoup: Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements 299 to enhance the opportunities for creating intra-block courts and walkways between properties and buildings. 4 (City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1998b) The absence of off-street parking (and of cars driving across the sidewalks to reach it) helps make Carmel one of the best places in America to be a pedestrian, and people from all over the world come to walk around (see Figure 3). Few cities will want to prohibit off-street parking, and many may not want to limit it, but they may wish to restrict surface parking lots, as in downtown San Francisco: No permanent parking lot shall be permitted in [downtown]; temporary parking lots may be approved as conditional uses... for a period not to exceed two years from the date of approval (City of San Francisco, 2006). Even without reducing their off-street parking requirements, cities like Palo Alto and Pasadena in California have improved urban design by offering developers the opportunity to pay a fee in lieu of providing all the parking spaces required by zoning. The cities then use the revenue to provide shared public parking spaces to replace those the developers would have provided. Public parking spaces built with the in-lieu revenue allow drivers to park once and visit multiple sites on foot, reducing vehicle traffic and increasing foot traffic. The in-lieu option makes it easier to restore historic buildings and rehabilitate historic areas for the reasons noted earlier. And because developers can meet their parking requirements without on-site parking, storefronts can be continuous, without the gaps that parking lots create. Developers can also undertake infill projects without assembling large parcels for on-site parking, and architects have greater design freedom. The public parking structures consume less land than if each development provided its own parking lot, and cities can place the structures where they interfere least with vehicle and pedestrian circulation. To improve the streetscape, some cities dedicate the first floor of public parking structures to retail uses. The in-lieu policy thus contributes to a better looking, safer, and more walkable city. Some cities allow shared parking among sites where the peak parking demands occur at different times (e.g., banks and bars). Fewer spaces are needed to meet the combined peak demand, and each parking space is occupied more of the time. 5 For example, Circle Centre, a successful retail/ entertainment development in downtown Indianapolis, would have needed 6,000 parking spaces if it were built with unshared parking for every individual use, but only 2,815 shared parking spaces were sufficient to meet the demand (Smith, 1996). Removing or reducing off-street parking requirements does not restrict parking or reduce the market incentive for developers to provide an adequate supply. Letting markets determine the number of off-site parking spaces changes, but does not eliminate, planning for parking. Local governments should still regulate parking landscaping, layout, location, pedestrian access, provisions for the handicapped, security, setback, signage, storm water runoff, and urban design. The following section discusses ways to improve urban design by regulating the location and appearance of parking spaces. Parking Location Requirements The location and placement of parking greatly affects urban design. Parking lots located between the sidewalk and buildings make walking more onerous. To avoid this, planners can use conventional zoning regulations to require that parking be positioned below, behind, or beside buildings, rather than in front, and that buildings be oriented to the sidewalk. Although Los Angeles did not begin to require off-street parking for retail and commercial buildings until 1946, cars and parking transformed the character of its commercial spaces in the first half of the 20th century. Richard Longstreth documented these changes. His work explains how merchants valued the sidewalk orientation of their businesses. Faced with an increase in the demand for parking, merchants initially provided parking spaces behind their buildings. Thus, major retail corridors like Wilshire Boulevard maintained a sense of street-front drama by adhering to the pattern of showing facades and offering rear parking (Longstreth, 1992, p. 152). Wilshire Boulevard set an example of pedestrian orientation for the region s smaller retail precincts during the 1930s and 1940s, but merchants finally abandoned pedestrians to make life more convenient for motorists and, as Liebs (1985) wrote, the long-standing tenet of Main Street commercial site planning line the shops along the sidewalk with room for parking only at the curb was finally cast aside (p. 14). In a Planning Advisory Service report on how to prepare zoning ordinances, Lerable (1995) showed how the placement of parking lots can influence the pedestrian quality of the streetscape. The bottom panel of Figure 4 illustrates his recommended approach, placing parking lots behind buildings so that the only gap between shops is the access to parking. An even more desirable approach would close all gaps between the shops and provide access to the parking lot from a side street or rear alley. This would eliminate curb cuts on the main street, reduce driving across sidewalks to access the off-street parking, and allow the maximum amount of curb parking. Curb parking buffers the pedestrian

300 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2006, Vol. 72, No. 3 Figure 3. Walking in downtown Carmel.

Mukhija and Shoup: Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements 301 from cars and other vehicles on the street, and improves the walking experience on the sidewalk. Similar ideas are popular with new urbanist architects and planners (Calthorpe, 1993). New urbanists sometimes go so far as to recommend a specific building typology, such as a colonnaded arcade, in order to respect the streetscape and push parking behind the buildings. A less prescriptive method is the use of build-to lines, the opposite of setback lines. Whereas setbacks ensure that buildings are placed at least a specified distance back from the street, build-to lines require that buildings come up to a specified plane, usually the sidewalk. New York s Lower Manhattan Plan pioneered the use of build-to lines to define visual corridors and maintain street front continuity (Barnett, 1974). Regulations on the location of parking should not be implemented uniformly across a city, but should match a larger urban design strategy that recognizes the differing characters of neighborhoods. The city of SeaTac, Washington, for example, focuses on developing pedestrian-friendly commercial districts. It prohibits parking lots from dominating the streets in the commercial districts: No parking shall be located between the building and the front property line. On corner lots, no parking shall be located between the building and either of the two (2) front property lines (City of SeaTac, 2006). 6 Such ideas are valuable outside commercial areas as well. In West Hollywood, California, zoning prohibits the use of a residential front yard for parking: Automobiles shall not be parked between the street property line and the front of a residential unit except on a driveway leading to a garage or carport, or a semicircular driveway on a lot that has a minimum frontage width of seventy feet. 7 (City of West Hollywood, 2006a) Such requirements help put on-site parking spaces beside or behind buildings, rather than in front, and can be combined with some of the design improvement strategies we discuss in the next section. Design Improvement Requirements Rather than focus on individual land uses, planning for parking should actively shape public space. The following strategies show how cities can improve the design of surface parking, parking structures, and residential parking. Improved Design of Surface Parking Because of their ubiquity, parking lots create great problems for urban design. They will continue to be built, Figure 4. Parking lot guidelines. Source: Lerable (1995, p. 30).

302 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2006, Vol. 72, No. 3 but better design strategies can help integrate them into the built environment and improve the public realm. We have already discussed the possibility of locating these lots behind or beside buildings. Another approach, offered by Lynch and Hack (1984), is to limit the size of the parking lots and to drop them a few feet below pedestrian grade, so that the line of sight passes over the car... [which] also makes it easier to screen the lots with planting or low walls (p. 265). Cities can also require that surface parking be screened, as in West Hollywood: Parking areas adjacent to a public right-of-way shall be provided with landscaping that is designed and maintained to screen cars from the view from the street to a height of forty-two inches, measured from the surface of the parking area. (City of West Hollywood, 2006d) The reason for limiting the size of parking lots, dropping them partially below grade, and screening them is that conventional parking lots are visually unappealing. Other than concealing them, how can we make them more attractive? One strategy is to use landscaping. In the late 1980s, the Columbus Carscape Competition invited design ideas to improve parking design for a lot in downtown Columbus, Ohio. The winning entry transformed the parking lot into a park, an urban plaza, through the use of ordinary elements of urban design patterned pavers and lights under a canopy of trees (Miller, 1988, p. 40). The winner proposed densely interspersing parking spaces with Bradford pear trees that do not bear fruit but mark the seasons with white blossoms in the spring and leaves turning red-orange in the fall (ibid.). The design was inspired by European urban plazas that accommodate cars, marketplaces, and other activities in a single location. Modest landscaping can improve even small parking lots tremendously, and at low cost (see Figure 5). Many cities have landscaping requirements for parking lots. West Hollywood, for example, has developed a comprehensive strategy. First, the city requires one canopy tree for every eight parking spaces (City of West Hollywood, 2006c). 8 Second, it defines the number of points awarded for each of a number of landscape and design features, as shown in Table 1. Developers can choose how to achieve the required number of points. This strategy is not overly prescriptive, and allows designers to be creative, but even cities that did not wish to use a point approach could use ideas from Table 1. In Southern California, solar collectors cover some parking lots (see Figure 6). Some look like high-tech trellises or public art, and feature changing patterns. This makes parking lots more attractive and shades the cars, but is still a costly approach, even taking into consideration the offsetting benefit from the electricity generated. Parking Structure Design Requirements Locating parking in structures occupies less land than surface parking. However parking structure design only occasionally enhances the built environment. In rare circumstances, collaboration between a skilled architect and an enlightened developer leads to a beautiful and functional parking structure, but developers often neglect the architecture and build parking structures as cheaply as possible. Most developers will voluntarily spend money to improve the appearance of a parking structure only to the extent that it increases the value of the residential or commercial development it serves. Because the private economic Figure 5. Parking lot without and with landscaping, West Hollywood. (Photo courtesy of Paul Travis).

Mukhija and Shoup: Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements 303 Table 1. Landscape and site development features qualifying as credits toward point totals for parking lots in West Hollywood, California. Earned points Qualifying landscape or site development features 10 8% of site area within parking lot perimeter occupied by landscaping. 4 Each canopy tree. 4 Each existing large or well-established tree or specimen plant retained. 6 Consistent use of vine pockets against walls. 5 Pedestrian amenities (e.g., thematic or comprehensive pedestrian lighting scheme, unique decorative materials, art, or ornamental sculpture or fountains), each. 4 Surfaces other than asphalt or concrete and permeable surfaces as part of hardscape (does not include planters). Light colored surfaces and grasscrete are encouraged. 4 Pavement surfaces of rubberized asphalt. 5 Decorative perimeter walls with integral architectural elements (e.g., gateways, coping, piers, and ornamental decorative materials). The following are available only for parking lots with 51 or more spaces 20 Integration of circulation, hardscape, walls, landscaping, and lighting into a central design concept approved by the Review Authority. 5 Clearly delineated axis to adjoining buildings or other site relationships. 5 Maximum separation of pedestrian and vehicular travel ways. 5 Transition zones to sidewalk and building-adjacent areas. 5 Ability to use parking lot space in other ways when not being used for parking, with uses and activities deemed compatible with the zoning of the site and surrounding properties (e.g., pedestrian space or basketball court). 6 Decorative perimeter walls with integral architectural elements (e.g., gateways, coping, piers, and ornamental and decorative materials). Source: City of West Hollywood (2006b) incentives for good parking design are weak, parking structures need architectural controls and review to ensure good urban design. One strategy to improve urban design is to build parking structures that look like regular buildings. 9 This was a common practice in the early part of the last century. A more contemporary approach is to wrap, or surround, a parking structure with retail or other uses. Dunphy, Myerson, and Pawlukiewicz (2003) suggested that creative designers can wrap a parking structure with retail shops, eateries, residences, and services, such as dry cleaners (p. 11). In addition to concealing the parking, this creates a mixeduse development, and patrons who park in the structure provide a built-in clientele for the retail businesses. However, this approach can increase a developer s cost if natural ventilation is not feasible and mechanical ventilation is required. In such cases, cities may offer the developer a higher floor area ratio as compensation. Alternatively, cities can require retail or residential uses only at the street level and some modest architectural details on the upper level facades (see Figure 7). San Diego s zoning ordinance mandates this approach for parking in the CBD: All enclosed ground level parking areas shall be shielded from adjoining public streets, with such parking areas being separated from the public sidewalk by habitable residential or non-residential space, or utility rooms. (City of San Diego, 2006).

304 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2006, Vol. 72, No. 3 Figure 6. Solar collectors over a parking lot, Los Angeles.

Mukhija and Shoup: Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements 305 Garage Door Restrictions The importance of improved parking design is not limited to the commercial districts of cities. Parking infrastructure (garages and driveways) can easily overwhelm residential neighborhoods as well. To reduce the impact of parking on the residential streetscape, Carmel restricts the size of all residential garage doors that face a street to the width necessary for a single car: On sites of less than 6,000 square feet, only a single-car-width garage door shall face the street (City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, 1998a). As a result, garage doors do not dominate the fronts of houses. Figure 8 shows an example of a resulting facade. Portland, Oregon, limits the length of the garage wall facing the street to no more than 50% of the entire building façade (Wittenberg, 2002). 10 Other cities could follow similar strategies, limiting garage frontage but allowing more depth for parking. Local governments can also restrict the location and design of garages. To prohibit snout houses with protruding garages that take up most of the street frontage, Olympia, Washington, requires that garages be located behind the house or stepped back from the facade of a building. To limit the view of garages from the street and to minimize curb cuts that disrupt the sidewalks, Olympia s garage design guidelines recommend that driveways be as narrow as possible and shared where feasible (see Figure 9). Recessed garages and balconies over garage doors also help the doors disappear in the shadows (see Figure 10). Garage sidewalls that face the street can be designed to appear as habitable spaces by incorporating windows and other design elements that are in character with the rest of the dwelling (City of Olympia, 2006). Conclusion Although we criticize the way planners now regulate parking, we do not call for deregulation. Instead, we recommend that planners use their ability to regulate parking more constructively, worrying less about the quantity of parking and more about its quality. Market Figure 7. Parking structure with ground-floor retail, Beverly Hills.

306 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2006, Vol. 72, No. 3 Figure 8. Single-car-width garage, Carmel. Figure 9. Shared driveway, Forest Hills. (Photo courtesy of Joel Cochran). Figure 10. Recessed garage door, Los Angeles.

Mukhija and Shoup: Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements 307 forces can ensure an adequate number of parking spaces, but the economic incentives for good parking design are weak. Nonetheless, most local governments strictly regulate parking quantity but ignore its quality. As a result, parking now spoils much of the American landscape. Even where local governments do regulate the design of parking lots and structures, minimum parking requirements require a massive parking supply that is difficult to camouflage. This article points out places that have put quality ahead of quantity in their regulation of parking, providing examples for other localities. We find at least five different approaches to improving urban design through creative off-street parking requirements: limiting the number of parking spaces; improving the location of parking; and requiring better design of parking lots, parking structures, and residential garages. Just as many cities have adapted zoning codes from other communities, they can use design regulations from other places to improve the quality of their own urban environments. Planners cannot significantly improve the design of cities without reforming local parking requirements to emphasize quality over quantity. While developers may object that better design will cost more, cities can mitigate these costs by reducing or removing minimum parking requirements. Reducing parking alone will improve urban design. As a famous architect once put it, less is more. Acknowledgements We are grateful for the assistance of Steven Crosley, Matthew Dresden, Joseph Holmes, Hiro Iseki, David King, George Kosovich, Michael Manville, Ann McCauley, Andrew Mondschien, Eric Morris, Paul Philley, Lara Regus, Sara Slovin, and Paul Sorensen in editing this manuscript. We also thank Poppy Gilman for helping assemble images and Paul Travis for allowing us to use his illustrations. Notes 1. In their illuminating history of how parking lots have affected American cities, Jakle and Sculle (2004) concluded, Nothing over the past century has proven as disruptive of traditional urban landscape as parking. Perhaps nothing has made American cities less memorable (p. 8). In his excellent guide to better design of parking lots and structures, Childs (1999) wrote, The typical design of parking lots as simply a monofunctional expanse of cheap asphalt and a net of white lines is wasteful and destructive.... parking lots have eaten away cities in the United States like moths devouring a lace wedding gown (p. xxi). Minimum parking requirements have made this bad situation even worse. 2. In their seminal work Collage City, Rowe and Koetter (1978) criticized the revitalization of cities based entirely on demolition and redevelopment, and made an argument for the preservation of older buildings and styles. 3. The Los Angeles Municipal Code states that for these conversions, The required number of parking spaces shall be the same as the number of spaces that existed on the site on June 3, 1999, and shall be maintained and not reduced (City of Los Angeles, 2001). 4. Carmel provides several parking lots on the periphery of its downtown. 5. The Urban Land Institute (1983) explains the economics of shared parking. 6. Similarly, the Rochester, New York, Municipal Code states, parking shall not be permitted between a building and the sidewalk (City of Rochester, 2005b). 7. Similarly, the Rochester, New York, Municipal Code states, Parking for single-family, two-family and attached dwellings in all districts shall be limited to no more than three vehicles for each dwelling unit. No parking for such residential uses shall be located in the required side or front yard setback except in a legal driveway that provides access to the rear yard, a detached or attached garage. (City of Rochester, 2005a). 8. Similarly, the Rochester, New York, Municipal Code states, A minimum of one landscaped area with a minimum size of 162 square feet (approximately nine feet by 18 feet) shall be provided for every 15 parking spaces and developed as islands within the parking surface area (City of Rochester, 2005c). 9. West Hollywood requires that Parking structures visible from street frontages shall be designed to be compatible with architectural character and quality of adjacent buildings and shall not adversely impact abutting pedestrian sidewalks (City of West Hollywood, 2006e). 10. Similarly, New Jersey requires cities to calculate the number of offstreet parking spaces in a way that reduces the garage frontage. A one-car garage and driveway combination counts as two parking spaces if the length of the driveway is at least 18 feet between the face of the garage door and the right-of-way (State of New Jersey, 2006). References Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., & Silverstein, M. (1977). A pattern language. New York: Oxford University Press. Barnett, J. (1974). Urban design as public policy: Practical methods for improving cities. New York: Architectural Record, McGraw-Hill. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Childs, M. (1999). Parking spaces: A design, implementation, and use manual for architects, planners, and engineers. New York: McGraw-Hill. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. (1998a). City of Carmel-by-the- Sea Municipal Code, 17.24.120 C. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California. (1998b). City of Carmel-bythe-Sea Municipal Code, 17.38.030 A. City of Los Angeles, California. (2001). Los Angeles Municipal Code 12.22 A 26(g)(3). City of Olympia, Washington. (2006). Olympia Municipal Code 18.05A.280 B 3. City of Portland, Oregon. (2006). Portland Municipal Code 33.266.119 B 3. City of Rochester, New York. (2005a). Rochester Municipal Code 120-173 F 1(c). City of Rochester, New York. (2005b). Rochester Municipal Code 120-173 F 1(d). City of Rochester, New York. (2005c). Rochester Municipal Code 120-173 F 2(f). City of San Diego, California. (2006). San Diego Municipal Code 151.0313 (h)(1). City of San Francisco, California. (2006). San Francisco Municipal Code 156(h). City of SeaTac, Washington. (2006). SeaTac Municipal Code 15.13.110 A 4(a). City of West Hollywood, California. (2006a). West Hollywood Municipal Code 19.28.090 D 1(a).

308 Journal of the American Planning Association, Summer 2006, Vol. 72, No. 3 City of West Hollywood, California. (2006b). West Hollywood Municipal Code 19.28.100 (Table 3-9). City of West Hollywood, California. (2006c). West Hollywood Municipal Code 19.28.100 B 1. City of West Hollywood, California. (2006d). West Hollywood Municipal Code 19.28.100 B 3(a). City of West Hollywood, California. (2006e). West Hollywood Municipal Code 19.28.110 B 1. Dunphy, R., Myerson, D., & Pawlukiewicz, M. (2003). Ten principles for successful development around transit. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Jakle, J., & Sculle, K. (2004). Lots of parking: Land use in a car culture. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Lerable, C. (1995). Preparing a conventional zoning ordinance (Planning Advisory Service Report No. 460). Chicago: American Planning Association. Liebs, C. (1985). Main street to miracle mile: American roadside architecture. Boston: Little, Brown. Longstreth, R. (1992). The perils of a parkless town. In M. Wachs & M. Crawford (Eds.), The car and the city (pp. 141 153). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Lynch, K., & Hack, G. (1984). Site planning (3rd ed.). Boston: MIT Press. Miller, C. (1988). Carscape, a parking handbook. Columbus, OH: Washington Street Press. Rowe, C., & Koetter, F. (1978). Collage city. Boston: MIT Press. Shoup, D. (2005). The high cost of free parking. Chicago: Planners Press. Smith, M. (1996, September). Circle Centre: How parking helped make urban retail/entertainment development work. Parking, 25 33. State of New Jersey. (2006). New Jersey Administrative Code 5:21-4.14(d)(2). Urban Land Institute. (1983). Shared parking. Washington, DC: Author. Wittenberg, J. (2002, August). Garages: Not just for cars anymore. Zoning News, 1 5.

The Practice of Parking Requirements By Donald Shoup, FAICP Cities have needed parking spaces ever since the two-wheeled chariot was invented in Sumeria about 5,000 years ago, but parking did not become a pandemic problem until the 20th century when cars appeared in great numbers. Columbus, Ohio, became the first U.S. city to establish a parking requirement for any type of land use when it began to require off-street parking for apartment houses in 1923. Fresno, California, in turn, became the first U.S. city to establish parking requirements for any land uses other than housing when it began to require off-street parking for hotels and hospitals in 1939 1 (for author s notes, see webbased enhancements). Although off-st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s a re now more than 80 yea rs old, no tex tb o o ks i n u r ban pla n n i ng or tra nsp o rtation pla n n i ng ex plain them. The onl y a rt i cles on pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s pu bl ished in lead i ng jo u r na ls o f t h e pla n n i ng pro fession are seve re l y cr i t i ca l o f t h e m, and no one has ste pped up in their defe ns e. 2 THREE STEPS IN SETTING A PARKING REQUIREMENT To set a parking requirement, an urban planner must (1) identify the land use, (2) choose the basis for the requirement, and (3) estab- (Above) Many parking requirements for automobile dealers have three bases gross floor area, service bays, and vehicles with a different number of parking spaces required per unit of each base. (Left) Should a city require any parking spaces at all for uses such as taxi stands, other than those required to park the taxis? area; three spaces for every service bay in repair garage areas; one space for every vehicle customarily used in the operation of this use or stored on the premises. 3 Ed i t o r s n o te: This i ssue of Zo n i ng Pra c t i ce, d e r ived from Append i x A and portions o f Ch a pte r 21 of Donald Sh o u p s The High Cost o f F ree Pa r ki ng ( Pl a n ne r s P ress, 2005), desc r i b es h owc i t y pl a n ners, most of whom are poorly t ra i ned and ill- i n f o r m ed about p a r k i ng, dete r- m i ne and apply o f f-st ree t p a r k i ng req u i re m e nts, a nd how, acco rd i ng to the author, this p ro cess h a s g o ne so fa r w ro ng. It co n c l u d eswith a disc u ssion of the more marke t- b a sed appro a ch of p a r k i ng bene f i t d i st r i c ts, which sa t i sfy p a r k i ng needs, all owf o r m o re devel o p a ble urban land t h a t would otherwise be used for d i s p ro p o r t i o n- a tely high amounts of parking, and pro d u ce reve n u es f o r p u bl i c i m p rove m e nts. To purch a se the book, v i s i t Pl a n ne r s B o o k Se r v i ce at w w w. pl a n n i ng.o rg / b o o k se r v i ce/. lish how many parking spaces to require per unit of the basis. Sometimes the steps are simple and straightforward. For example, a typical parking requirement for an office building is four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of the building s floor area. The land use is an office building, the basis for the requirement is floor area, and a developer must provide four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. For many land uses, however, the parking requirements are more complicated. Consider, for example, this parking requirement for automobile dealerships: 3.3 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area of sales and showroom The pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t for auto m obile d ea le rs has t h ree bas es g ross floor area, servi ce bays, and ve h i cles with a diffe re n t n u m b e r o f pa r ki ng spa ces re q u i red per un i t o f ea ch basis. Planners must interpret some parking requirements on a case-by-case approach. Consider, for example, this requirement for a taxi stand: One space for each employee on the largest working shift, plus one space per taxi, plus sufficient spaces to accommodate the largest number of visitors that may be expected at a ny one time. 4 This requirement also has three bases employees, taxis, and visitors but planners Copyright 2006 American Planning Association. Reprinted with permission. ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06

The Practice of Parking Requirements ASK THE AUTHOR JOIN US ONLINE! From February 20 to March 3, go online to participate in our Ask the Author forum, an interactive feature of Zoning Practice. Donald Shoup, FAICP, will be available to answer questions about this article. Go to the APA website at www.planning.org and follow the links to the Ask the Author section. From there, just submit your questions about the article using an e-mail link. The author will reply, and Zoning Practice will post the answers cumulatively on the website for the benefit of all subscribers. This feature will be available for selected issues of Zoning Practice at announced times. After each online discussion is closed, the answers will be saved in an online archive available through the APA Zoning Practice web pages. About the Author Donald Shoup, FAICP, is a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. He holds a doctorate in economics from Yale and is a Fellow of the American Institute of Certified Planners. From 1996 to 2001, Shoup directed the Institute of Transportation Studies at UCLA and, from 1999 to 2003, he chaired the university s Department of Urban Planning. have considerable discretion in deciding how many spaces to require. They must estimate the largest working shift, the largest number of visitors expected at any one time, and how many cars they will park. If interpreted literally, this requirement appears to guarantee that the parking supply will accommodate the highest conceivable number of cars that could ever park at a taxi stand and that most parking spaces will be vacant most of the time. T h is pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t ra is es a ra ft o f q u est i o ns. First, re q u i r i ng one pa r ki ng spa ce per empl oyee and one spa ce per ta xi impl i es t ha t a ll e m pl oye es will d r i ve to the ta xi sta n d alone, pa r k their own ca rs, and then ta ke poss ession of a pa r ked ta xi. Is t h isa reas o na ble assumption? Might not, for exa m ple, some ta xi d r i ve rs ta ke their ca bs home and re turn wi t h them the nex t day? S e cond, re q u i r i ng one spa ce per empl oyee on the la rgest wo r ki ng s h i ft i m pl i es pla n n e rsk n ow how ma ny e m pl oye es will wo r k on this s h i ft. Wo r ki ng shift s may va ry s eas o na ll y with sharp bu t i n f re q u e n t p ea ks. The use of ta xis may r ise during hea v y d ow n p o u rs, for exa m ple, bu t fa ll a t other times when the weather is pleasa n t enough for wa l k- i ng. So how ma ny e m pl oye es a re we rea ll y ta l ki ng about? T h i rd, re q u i r i ng su f f i ci e n t spa ces to acco m m o da te the la rgest number of visi to rs t ha t may be ex p e c ted at a ny one time i m pl i espla n n e rscan know this n u m b e r, which t h e y ca n n o t. W h o, after all, are the visi to rs to a ta xi stand, and why wo uld they wa n t to pa r k t h e re? Most p e o ple who visi t a ta xi stand are p roba bl y wi t h o u t their ca rs, which is w hy t h e y wa n t a ta xi. The la rgest number of visi to rs ex p e c ted at a ny one time is i m p ossi ble to k n ow in ad va n ce and will, in any e vent, occu r o nl y ra re l y. Fina ll y, why s h o uld a ci t y re q u i re a ny pa r ki ng spa ces a t a ll for a ta xi stand, other t han those re q u i red to pa r k the ta xis? S ad l y, the co m pl i ca ted and pu z zl i ng ta xi - stand pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t is n o t an anoma l y, or a t least n o t m u ch of one. T h ro u g h o u t the U.S., pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s a re laden with si m ila r l y ba f f l i ng rules, which co m bine to ma ke the provision of pa r ki ng long on reg ulation and short o n common sense. Bu t we should not be too quick to blame pla n n e rs for this si tu a t i o n pla n n e rs a re being as ked, after all, to perform a ha rd job for which they ha ve not been trained. S e t t i ng the pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t for any si ng le land us e is a cha lle nge, and pla n n e rs m ust s e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s for hun d re ds o f land us es. In its m ost re ce n t su rve y o f pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s i n 2 0 02, the Pla n n i ng Advis o ry S e rvi ce (PAS) fo un d 6 62 land us es with dist i n c t pa r ki ng re q u i rem e n t s as we ll as 216 diffe re n t fa c to rs used as the bas es for them. 5 662 LAND USES The first step in setting a parking requirement is to define the land use. This is not an easy task, since even the definition of land use is open to interpretation. In Urban Traffic: A WEB-BASED ENHANCEMENTS Zo n i ng Pra c t i ce ro u t i n e l y p ost s i n fo r ma t i o n on the web for our read e rs. T h is issue co m es with notes by the author and three ta bles : fa c to rs used as bas es for minimum pa r ki ng re q u i rements; a su rve y o f pa r ki ng re q u i rem e n t s for office bu ild i ngs in 117 Ca l i fo r n ia ci t i es b e t ween 1975 and 1993; and add i t i o na l land us es with pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s i n Southern Ca l i fo r n ia beyond the 662 identified in the Pla n n i ng Advis o ry S e rvi ce su rve y. We i nvi te you to ch e ck o u t t h ese enha n ce m e n t s a t w w w. pla n n i ng.o rg / Zo n i ng P ra c t i ce / cu r re n t issue.htm. We will do this w h e n e ve r we determine tha t we can use our webpa ges to heighten the info r mation value we are d e l i ve r i ng to su bscr i b e rs. Function of Land Use, Robert Mitchell and Chester Rapkin describe various meanings of the term: The term land use (used so fre q u e n t l y i n pla n n i ng) has s e ve ra l sp e ci f i c m ea n i ngs. It may re fer to bu ild i ngs or other improvem e n t s on the land, to the occu pa n t s o r us e rs o f the land, to the ma jor pu r p os es o f the occu pa n c y o f the land, or to the ki n d o f a c t i vi t i es on the land. S o m e t i m es t h e term is e m pl oyed wi t h o u t b e i ng defined sp e ci f i ca ll y. 6 Planners usually require parking spaces for land uses according to this last meaning: the major activities of the establishments based on the land. The variety of uses and standards cited in the PAS Report is astonishing: batting cages and body-piercing studios, construction trailers and convents, dance halls and detoxification centers, jewelry stores and junkyards, libraries and liquor stores, monasteries and mortuaries, night clubs and nunneries, sauna baths and sawmills, taverns and truck-wash facilities. Because parking demand varies greatly among these land uses, and the parking demand varies greatly among different cities for the same land use, setting the parking requirements for every land use in every city is a daunting task 7 (see web-based enhancements). 216 BASES A fter identifyi ng the land use the second ste p in setting a pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t is to deci d e h ow ma ny pa r ki ng spa ces to re q u i re per... per w hat? To ans wer this q u estion, pla n n e rs s e e k to identify re le va n t fa c to rs t ha t m i g h t help to p re d i c t pa r ki ng demand. With no help to be fo und in tex tb o o ks on la n d - use and tra nsp o rtation pla n n i ng (bu t p e r ha ps with some insp i ration from Rube Gold b e rg or Heath Robi ns o n ) 8, ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06

The Practice of Parking Requirements pla n n e rs ha ve identified these 216 fa c to rs t ha t su pp os e d l y p re d i c t p ea k pa r ki ng dema n d 9 ( s e e web - based enha n ce m e n t s ). Floor area is the most common basis for parking requirements, but this measure raises many questions about the definition of floor area: should it be gross area, leasable area, sales area, or some other measure? For example, some cities require parking for restaurants in proportion to the dining area only, excluding the kitchen, while others require parking in proportion to the gross floor area, including the kitchen. (Gross floor area is the building s total floor area, including cellars, basements, corridors, lobbies, stairways, elevators, and storage; it is measured from the building s outside walls.) If a city requires parking in proportion to dining area, a larger kitchen area does not require more parking may re d u ce the number of wo r ke rs h i re d. 1 1 Bu t i f the ci t y re q u i res t wo pa r ki ng spa ces per 1,000 sq u a re feet, a firm ca n n o t ex pa n d i t s pla n t wi t h o u t add i ng more pa r ki ng spa ces, even if the ex pa nsion adds no new e m pl oye es. Re q u i r i ng pa r ki ng in pro p o rt i o n to floor area thus i n creas es the cost o f pla n t spa ce and may re d u ce invest m e n t in pla n t si ze. The fa c tor ch osen as the basis for a pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t t h e re fo re affe c t s f i r m s h i r i ng and invest m e n t d e cisi o ns. Given thes e e f fects, how should pla n n e rs re q u i re pa r ki ng for ma n u fa c tu r i ng si tes and for hun d re ds o f other land us es? CONVERGENCE TO THE GOLDEN RULE The third step in setting a pa r ki ng re q u i rem e n t is to sp e ci fy the number of pa r ki ng spa ces re q u i red. The problem is t ha t pla n- their re q u i re m e n t by 1993, and none had re d u ced it. Of the ci t i es re q u i r i ng more tha n the mode in 1975, 80 perce n t had re d u ce d their re q u i re m e n t by 1993, and none had i n creased it. Onl y t wo of the 31 ci t i es re q u i r- i ng four spa ces per 1,000 sq u a re fe e t in 1975 had cha nged their re q u i re m e n t by 1993 (one u p, one down). T h is co nve rge n ce towa rd the mode doubled the perce n ta ge of ci t i es re q u i r i ng four spa ces per 1,000 sq u a re fe e t f rom 27 perce n t in 1975 to 54 perce n t in 1993 (see web - based enha n ce m e n t s ). Practitioners sometimes refer to four spaces per 1,000 square feet as the magic number or golden rule. 13 Because one offstreet parking space (along with its share of ramps and aisles) occupies at least 300 square feet, four spaces occupy at least 1,200 square feet. Requiring four parking spaces per Communities get vast expanses of wasted space when parking space requirements are based on the relatively narrow period of peak demand. These photos of suburban shopping areas were taken during weekday business hours. spaces, so restaurants will tend to have larger kitchens. But if the city requires parking in proportion to the gross floor area, a larger kitchen does require more parking spaces, so the requirement constrains the kitchen size. The definition of floor area for a parking requirement can thus directly alter the use of the space inside buildings. The fa c tor used as the basis for a pa r k- i ng re q u i re m e n t can ha ve serious un i n- tended co ns e q u e n ces. For exa m ple, ci t i es can re q u i re pa r ki ng for ma n u fa c tu r i ng si tes in pro p o rtion to empl oye es or floor area. Co nsider the effe c t s o f t h ese two re q u i rements: (1) one spa ce per empl oyee on the s h i ft o f ma ximum empl oy m e n t or (2) two pa r ki ng spa ces per 1,000 sq u a re fe e t o f f l o o r a rea. 1 0 I f the ci t y re q u i res one spa ce per e m pl oyee, a firm ca n n o t h i re more sta f f wi t h- o u t add i ng more pa r ki ng spa ces. Re q u i r i ng pa r ki ng in pro p o rtion to empl oye es t h us i n creas es the cost o f e m pl oyi ng labor and n e rs do not k n ow how ma ny pa r ki ng spa ces a drive-in resta u ra n t (or any other land us e ) n e e ds. Most pla n n e rs k n ow little more about pa r ki ng than does the ave ra ge ci t i ze n. Co pyi ng another ci t y s re q u i re m e n t is t h e refo re an obvi o us st ra tegy for anyone who n e e ds to re commend a pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t for any land use. If ci t i es do co py f rom one a n o t h e r, their pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s s h o uld co nve rge over time. Co nsider two su rve ys o f pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s for office bu ild i ngs i n 1 17 ci t i es in Southern Ca l i fo r n ia to see whether this co nve rge n ce occu rs. Rex Link, a pa r ki ng co nsul tant, co n d u c ted the first su r- ve y in 1975. I re p ea ted the su rve y in 1993 to a na l y ze tre n ds in these ci t i es re q u i re m e n t s d u r i ng the pre vi o us 18 yea rs. 1 2 The two su r- ve ys su ggest ci t i es do co py one another. In 1975, the most f re q u e n t re q u i re m e n t ( t h e mode) was four spa ces per 1,000 sq u a re fe e t. Of the ci t i es re q u i r i ng less t han the mode in 1975, 65 perce n t had increas e d 1,000 square feet of floor area therefore commits at least 20 percent more space to parking than to buildings. After copying each others parking requirements for many years, most cities now require more space for cars than for humans. PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND REGIONAL CULTURE When su rve yi ng the pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s fo r o f f i ce bu ild i ngs in Southern Ca l i fo r n ia, I n o t i ced tha t ma ny ci t i es re q u i re pa r ki ng spa ces for more land us es t han the PA S fo und in its na t i o na l su rve y o f pa r ki ng re q u i rements. I co un ted 110 add i t i o na l la n d us es with pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s in S o u t h e r n Ca l i fo r n ia a b ove and beyond the 662 re p o rted by PA S (see web - based enha n cements). T h ese add i t i o na l land us es te ll us s o m e t h i ng about Southern Ca l i fo r n ia s cultu re and eco n o my, and they confirm some cl i ch es a b o u t the reg i o n. ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06

The Practice of Parking Requirements Confirming our love of cars and everything about them, there are parking requirements for automobile display, drive-in dairies, drive-through establishments, lube-n-tune shops, tire recapping, truck storage, and used car sales. And true to the stereotype about our love of finery are the parking requirements for cosmetic processing, custom dressmakers, millinery shops, shoe shops, and shoeshine kiosks. Finally, the parking requirements for self-defense studios and homes for the aged suggest that we look to the future with concern for our safety and hope for long life. PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND PARKING TECHNOLOGY In setting parking requirements, planners often confuse the number of parking spaces with the capacity to park cars in them because the capacity of a parking lot or garage to accommodate parked cars is an ambiguous concept. During the hours of peak demand, valet and stack parking can increase capacity by storing cars in tandem or in the access aisles, thus substituting labor for land and capital in parking cars. Automated garages, in turn, substitute capital investment and technology for parking spaces. Requirements for a minimum number of parking spaces eliminate the option to substitute labor for land and capital in providing parkedcar-hours, which is the fundamental measure of what is ultimately consumed when drivers leave their cars. The capacity of a parking lot or structure is the number of parked-car-hours per hour it can provide. This capacity can be increased by devoting less space to each car, by reducing the time needed to park and unpark a car, and by decreasing the minimum vacancy rate necessary for efficient operation. Pa r ki ng co nsumption also has q u a l i t y d i m e nsi o ns, i n cl u d i ng the sa fe t y o f the pa r ked ca rs and their ow n e rs, the speed of pa r ki ng and un pa r ki ng, pro tection fro m wea t h e r, and the like. In fo cusi ng on the sheer number of pa r ki ng spa ces, off-st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s n eg le c t ma ny i m p o rta n t co nsi d e ra t i o ns in how the pa r ki ng su p- pl y can most e f f i ci e n t l y m e e t pa r ki ng demand. Eu ro p ea n and Asian ci t i es ha ve insta lled hun d re ds o f a u to ma te d ga ra ges t ha t a cco m m o da te, in the same volume, twi ce as ma ny ca rs as a co nve n t i o na l ramped ga ra ge. A drive r pulls i n to the entry way o f w ha t l o o ks l i ke a si ng le - ca r ga ra ge, ste ps f rom the ca r, and pulls a ticke t. S e ns o rs d e termine when all p e o ple ha ve le ft the ga ra ge. The ca r is then lifted on a pa lle t and tra ns fe r red from the entry bay to a sto ra ge sl o t. When the driver re tu r ns and re i n- s e rt s the ticket, the car is d e l i ve red and pointed outwa rd within one or two minutes. From the drive r s p o i n t o f vi e w, the system wo r ksl i ke va le t pa r ki ng, although the d r i ver ke e ps the ke ys and no tip is ex p e c ted. As a n added ad va n ta ge for urban design, the st r u c tu re s fa cad e can easil y blend with the neighboring bu ild i ngs. (Left) Many zoning codes have not considered that changing lifestyles have serious parking implications. Home occupations, for example, have a significant impact on vehicular travel and parking. (Below) For generations, urbanites walked to the neighborhood church. Today, many parishioners drive to services because they live outside the neighborhood. The result: off-street parking requirements for churches and parking lots that replaced buildings once vital to the urban fabric. A u to ma ted ga ra ges o f fer grea ter secu r i t y for drive rs, ve h i cles, and their co n te n t s, so insu ra n ce cost s a re lowe r. Be ca use the ca rs a re pa r ked mecha n i ca ll y and the doors stay cl osed, horizo n ta l and ve rt i ca l spa ci ng between them is m i n i ma l. No spa ce is needed for ra m ps, aisles, ele va to rs, and sta i rs. T h ese spa ce -sa vi ng fea tu res a re a pa r- t i cular ad va n ta ge for un d e rg ro und pa r ki ng. Co nve n t i o na l un d e rg ro und st r u c tu res re q u i re ex p e nsi ve exca vation, shoring, wa te r p ro o f i ng, fire p ro o f i ng, lighting, and ve n t i- lation, so re d u ci ng the volume of a st r u c tu re grea t l y re d u ces i t s cost. Fu rt h e r m o re, a u to ma ted ga ra ges do not re q u i re ve n t ilation beca use car eng i n es a re never run n i ng when inside the st r u c tu re. Auto ma ted ga ra ges re q u i re onl y ha l f the volume of co nve n- t i o na l ga ra ges, and where land is sca rce, they can re d u ce the ca p i ta l and opera t i ng cost per pa r ki ng spa ce. 14 Desp i te their ad va n ta ges, auto ma ted ga ra ges a re ra re in the U.S., in pa rt b e ca use most zo n i ng co d es re q u i re a ce rtain number of p hysi ca l pa r ki ng spa ces o f a sp e ci f i c si ze and not a mecha n i ca l ca pa ci t y to sto re the same number of ca rs. Fu rt h e r m o re, beca use the ge n e ro us su ppl y o f re q u i red pa r ki ng spa ces has re d u ce d the price of m ost pa r ki ng to ze ro in the U.S., off-st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s ha ve re d u ced the pote n t ia l p ro f i ta bil i t y o f a u to ma ted ga ra ges and delayed their deve l o p- m e n t. Pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s ha ve also re ta rded the adoption of te ch n ol o g i es t ha t a ll ow co nve n t i o na l ga ra ges to sa t is fy d e mand with fe wer spa ces. Ele c t ro n i c si g ns, fo r exa m ple, can display h ow ma ny spa ces a re va ca n t on ea ch floor so tha t d r i ve rs can go d i re c t l y to a le ve l with ava ila ble spa ces. In some ga ra ges, sta lls ha ve ce il i ng- m o un te d d e te c to rs t ha t ch e ck whether a ve h i cle is p res e n t. The dete c to rs send obs e rva t i o nsto ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06

The Practice of Parking Requirements To change enough minds, urban planners must offer society something better than off-street parking requirements. a ce n t ra l co m pu te r, which upda tes si g ns on eve ry le ve l o f the ga ra ge p o i n t i ng the ro u te to the nea rest va ca n t spa ce. The indivi d u a l d e te c to rs a re equipped with lights and visi ble a l o ng the whole aisle, showi ng whether a spa ce is a va ila ble o ccupied sta lls a re red and va ca n t o n es a re g reen so drive rs can easil y see the n ea rest va ca n ci es and avoid aisles with no va ca n ci es. 1 5 The ce n t ra l co m- pu ter can also display h isto r i ca l da ta on the occu pa n c y and tu r n over ra tes o f i n d i vi d u a l spa ces and zo n es, and can provide the info r mation necessa ry to ana l y ze the operation of a ga ra ge and eva l u a te its p e rfo r ma n ce. T h is te ch n ol o gy is ra re in the U.S., where the ple n t i ful su ppl y o f pa r ki ng ma kes e f f i ci e n t use less i m p o rta n t. WHAT WENT WRONG? In attempting to assign a specific number of cars to almost every economic function in a city, parking requirements provide an interesting window onto the cities and showcase their quirks and priorities. But cities are too complex to be ordered and catalogued, and no amount of rational planning or dogged, well-intentioned work will ever measure everyone s need to park everywhere. Because this is what parking requirements are meant to do, it is little wonder they fail so spectacularly. Current parking policies in America are aesthetically, economically, environmentally, and intellectually bankrupt. Admittedly, requiring enough parking spaces in a new development does seem sensible. If some people drive to work, should a new office building not have some parking spaces? So what went wrong? The first p roblem is t ha t pla n n e rs re q u i re at least enough pa r ki ng spa ces to meet the pea k d e mand for free pa r k- i ng, rega rd less o f the cost. S e cond, and m o re fun da m e n tal, the pa r ki ng re q u i rem e n t s a re un n e cessa ry. After all, people a lso need food to live, bu t t h isd o es n o t m ean pla n n e rs s h o uld re q u i re eve ry AN ILLUSTRATION: ADVISING THE MAYOR Some people seem to think t ha t cha rgi ng ma r ke t p r i ces for curb pa r ki ng wo uld re q u i re a massi ve l y d i f f i cul t s o cia l cha nge, like Pro h i bition or the Re fo r mation. Neve rt h e less, it has wo r ke d s m o o t hl y w h e re ci t i esha ve esta bl is h e d pa r ki ng benefit d istricts. Although thes e d ist r i c t s re p res e n t o nl y a ma rg i na l cha nge to exist i ng pra c t i ces, they ca n p ro d u ce ma jor improvements. To pu t pa r ki ng benefit d ist r i c t s in the broad e r co n tex t o f t ra nsp o rtation, land use, and pu bl i c f i na n ce su pp ose the mayor of a ci t y in a deve l o p i ng nation as ks fo r ad vi ce on how to dea l with the pa r ki ng p roble m s ca used by ra p i d l y i n creasi ng car ow n e rs h i p. Co nsider two possi ble p ol i ci es: (1) keep curb pa r ki ng free and re q u i re all d e ve l o p m e n t to provide offo f f i ce bu ild i ng to provide a lun ch room big enough to su ppl y a f ree lun ch at noon for eve ryone who wo r ks in the bu ild i ng. Pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s a re esp e cia ll y d i f f i cul t to re fo r m b e ca use they a re entre n ched in zo n i ng co d es and embedded in an ela b o ra te st r u c tu re of permits, va r ia n ces, cove nants, co u rt d e cisi o ns, and entitlements. Their resul t s ha ve lite ra ll y b e e n ce m e n ted into the ci t y. Not o nl y will pla n n e rs ha ve to re je c t pa r ki ng re q u i rements, bu t so too will busi n ess es, pro p e rt y ow n- e rs, vo te rs, and ele c ted officia ls. To cha nge enough minds, u r ban pla n n e rs m ust o f fer soci e t y s o m e t h i ng better than offst re e t pa r ki ng re q u i rements, and pla n n e rs do ha ve something b e t ter to offer: pa r ki ng benefit d ist r i c t s with ma r ke t- p r i ced cu r b pa r ki ng. Sp e ci f i ca ll y, ci t i es s h o uld de-re q u i re off-st re e t pa r ki ng, cha rge ma r ke t p r i ces for curb pa r ki ng, and spend the resul t i ng re venue to pay for neighborhood pu bl i c i m p rove m e n t s. Removing off-street parking requirements does not mean off-street parking will disappear. Instead, where demand drives up the price of curb parking, developers will provide additional off-street parking of their own volition and charge for it accordingly. The Old Pasadena District in Pasadena, California. The city s Parking Development Fund, which is similar to a parking benefit district, helped transform the area into a vibrant and beautiful commercial district. RETROFITTING AMERICA Pa r ki ng benefit d ist r i c t s can be re t ro f i t te d i n cre m e n ta ll y i n to exist i ng neighborh o o ds. The new dist r i c t s a re not q u i te gove r n m e n t s and not q u i te busi n ess es, bu t t h e y s ha re some cha ra c te r ist i cs o f ea ch. T h e y will ma na ge their curb pa r ki ng su ppl y in a busi n essl i ke way, and the resul t i ng re venue will su pp o rt l o ca l pu bl i c i n i t ia t i ves. Cha rg i ng ma r ke t p r i ces for cu r b pa r ki ng will i m p rove tra nsp o rtation, and the pu bl i c sp e n d i ng will i m p rove neighb o r h o o ds. Re m ovi ng off-st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s will re d u ce the cost o f d e ve l o p m e n t and will f ree up much urba n land now lega ll y d e d i ca ted to pa r ki ng lots. In effect, ci t i es ha ve crea ted an enorm o us land ba n k t ha t can now be used fo r h o usi ng and other deve l o p m e n t i f o f f- st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s a re re m ove d. 1 6 The resul t s o f re m ovi ng pa r k- i ng re q u i re m e n t s will be grad u a l ra t h e r t han dra ma t i c. A fter ci t i ese ma n ci pa te themselves f rom off-st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s, ma ny s ma ll bu t si g n i f i ca n t re fo r m s ca n foll ow from the basi c un d e rsta n d i ng tha t f ree pa r ki ng has a high cost. In Los A nge les, for exa m ple, the Getty Mus e u m cha rges for pa r ki ng bu t ad m i t s p e o ple f ree, while the Hun t i ngton Mus e u m o f fe rsf ree pa r ki ng bu t cha rges p e o ple for ad m ission. Cha rg i ng more for pa r ki ng and less for people will i m p rove ci t y l i fe. ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06

The Practice of Parking Requirements Parking Requirements or Benefit Districts? Comparing Results Criterion 1 Air quality 2 Climate change 3 Energy consumption 4 Price of housing 5 Price of parking 6 Public revenue 7 Public transportation 8 Traffic congestion 9 Urban design 10 Urban sprawl 11 Walking environment 12 Water quality st re e t pa r ki ng, or (2) cha rge ma r ke t p r i ces fo r curb pa r ki ng and use the re venue to pay fo r l o ca l pu bl i c s e rvi ces. F ree curb park i ng. Of f-st re e t pa r ki ng re q u i re m e n t s will hide the cost o f pa r ki ng in the prices for eve ry t h i ng else. T h e y will colle c- t i vi ze the cost o f pa r ki ng so eve ryone will pay for pa r ki ng whether they use it or not. Fre e pa r ki ng will e n co u ra ge ve h i cle tra ve l and disco u ra ge tra ve l by foot, bi c ycle, and pu bl i c t ra n- si t. It will t h e re fo re increase energy co nsu m p- tion, tra f f i c co ngestion, and air pollution. T h e Parking requirements Worse Faster Higher Higher Lower Less Worse Worse Worse Faster Worse Worse Results Benefit districts Better Slower Lower Lower Higher More Better Better Better Slower Better Better t ra nsi t. The nation will i m p o rt fe wer ca rs and less fu e l. Be ca use moto r ist s will pay fo r pa r ki ng dire c t l y, no one will be fo rced to pay for it i n d i re c t l y. Curb pa r ki ng re venue will pay for neighborhood pu bl i c i nvest m e n t s. To help the mayor ch o ose, you might su g- gest cr i te r ia for co m pa r i ng the two pol i ci es, and the ta ble above shows 12 tha t wo uld be re le va n t. Pa r ki ng benefit d ist r i c t s exce l o n 11 of t h ese: air quality, cl i ma te cha nge, e n e rgy co nsumption, housi ng prices, pu bl i c re venue, pu bl i c t ra nsp o rtation, tra f f i c co n- separate from city planning and, accordingly, streets separate rather than link the different pieces of the city. 18 The re venue from curb pa r ki ng will re fo cus pla n n e rs attention on st re e t s a n d n e i g h b o r h o o ds. Be ca use neighborhoods will ha ve rea l m o n e y to spend and rea l ch o i ces to ma ke, the residents pre fe re n ces will a cq u i re new we i g h t and rea l co m m un i t y pa rt i ci pation will be necessa ry. Co n ce n t ra t i ng pla n n e rs attention on the tas k o f i m p rovi ng older neighborhoods may we ll be one of the new pa r ki ng pa rad i g m s m ost i m p o rta n t b e n e f i t s. A collection of ma te r ia ls f rom co m m un i- t i es with pa r ki ng benefit d ist r i c t s is a va ila ble to Zo n i ng Pra c t i ce su bscr i b e rs by co n ta c t i ng M i cha e l D a vi dson, edito r, Zo n i ng Pra c t i ce, at the American Pla n n i ng Ass o ciation, 122 South Mich i gan Avenue, Su i te 1600, Chica go, IL 60603, or by s e n d i ng an e-ma il to m da vi ds o n @ pla n n i ng.o rg. Cover photo: Modern cars with parking meter backdrop. Concept design by Lisa Barton; meter image by Getty Images. With parking benefit districts, planners will more often work in partnership with neighborhoods. ci t y will be designed and bu il t a ro und fre e pa r ki ng a t the ex p e nse of ma ny other pu bl i c goa ls. The nation will i m p o rt m o re ca rs a n d fu e l. The cost o f re q u i red pa r ki ng will be a hidden ta x e ve ryone must pay t h rough higher p r i ces for eve ry t h i ng they buy, even if t h e y d o n o t own a ca r. The ci t y will earn no curb pa r k- i ng re venue to pay for pu bl i c i nvest m e n t s. Ma rke t p ri ces f or c u rb park i ng. Ma r ke t p r i ces for curb pa r ki ng will i n d i vi d u a l i ze the cost o f pa r ki ng and give eve ryone an i n ce n t i ve to eco n o m i ze in usi ng it. T h is p oli c y will re vea l the cost o f pa r ki ng and all ow p r i va te ch o i ces to determine the off-st re e t pa r ki ng su ppl y. Ma r ke t p r i ces will crea te a few curb va ca n ci es so tha t d r i ve rs ca n a l ways find a pla ce to pa r k n ear their dest i- na t i o ns. The price of pa r ki ng will rest ra i n the demand for ca rs and will t h e re fo re re d u ce energy co nsumption, tra f f i c co ngestion, and air pollution. More people will t ra ve l by foot, bi c ycle, ca r p o ol, and pu bl i c gestion, urban design, urban sp rawl, wa l k- i ng envi ronment, and wa ter quality. 17 A NEW STYLE OF PLANNING Parking benefit districts will require a new style of urban planning. Planners now devote considerable effort to enforcing the parking requirements for new buildings or for changes in the use of existing buildings. As a result, they spend much of their time dealing with developers. With parking benefit districts, planners will more often work in partnership with neighborhoods, helping them decide how to manage curb parking and how to spend the public revenue it produces. In focusing on curb parking, city planners will also have to pay much more attention to streets, which they now largely neglect. As University of Washington professor of urban design Anne Vernez Moudon says, Streets have become a void in the mind of city planners. Transportation planning has been made VOL. 23, NO. 1 Zo n i ng Pra c t i ceis a monthl y pu bl i cation of t h e A m e r i can Pla n n i ng Ass o ciation. Su bscr i p t i o ns a re ava ila ble for $65 (U.S.) and $90 (fo reign). W. Pa ul Fa r m e r, A I C P, Exe cu t i ve Dire c tor; Will iam R. K lein, A I C P, Dire c tor of Res ea rch. Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548 0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and Michael Davidson, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design and Production. Co pyr i g h t 2006 by A m e r i can Pla n n i ng A ss o ciation, 122 S. Mich i gan Ave., Su i te 1600, C h i ca go, IL 60603. The American Pla n n i ng A ss o ciation also has o f fi ces a t 17 76 Massa ch us e t t s Ave., N.W., Was h i ngton, DC 20036; www. pla n n i ng.o rg. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association. P r i n ted on re c ycled pa p e r, incl u d i ng 50-70 % re c ycled fiber and 10% postco nsumer waste. ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06

The Practice of Parking Requirements N OT ES: T H E P R AC T I CE O F PARKING REQ U I R E M E N TS 1. Mogren and Smith (1952, 25). Hartmut Topp (1991, 12) says Germany began requiring building owners to provide off-street parking in 1939 when the Reichsgaragenordnung was enacted. 2. Shoup (1995, 1997, 1997a) and Willson (1995). Urban planners apparently feel no need to respond when articles in their profession s leading journals condemn a central practice of the profession. This silence suggests many planners don t read the journals, disagree with the criticism but don t have any response, or perhaps agree with the criticism but don t know what to do about it. 3. This is the parking requirement for an automobile sales establishment in St. Louis County, Missouri (Planning Advisory Service 1991, 8). 4. This is the parking requirement for a taxi stand in St. Clair Shores, Michigan (Planning Advisory Service 1991, 25). 5. Some of the 773 land uses in PAS Report 510/511 (2002) are duplicate names for what are essentially the same land uses. Abattoir, for example, is the same as slaughterhouse. When the 111 duplicate names are removed, there are 662 different land uses. The 15 surveyed cities are: Bellevue, Washington; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Davis, California; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Greensboro, North Carolina; Helena, Montana; Holland, Michigan; Iowa City, Iowa; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; Redmond, Washington; Richmond, Virginia; San Antonio, Texas; and Santa Cruz, California. 6. Mitchell and Rapkin (1954, 13). 7. The parking requirements for even the most frivolous-sounding land uses sometimes create serious debates. For example, Newport Beach, California, tripled its parking requirement for nail salons from one parking space for every 240 square feet of salon area to one space per 80 square feet in 1995. The planning commission had previously rejected the increase because the economic development committee had argued it would penalize new business. One member of the city council opposed the increase on the grounds that I think this is targeting a successful industry....ithink it s antibusiness (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 1995). 8. Rube Goldberg (American) and Heath Robinson (British) sketched complex contraptions, often dilapidated from overuse, designed to perform simple tasks and usually run by overly serious attendants executing simple duties like cutting a string. 9. These 216 factors used as bases for parking requirements were reported in the surveys conducted by the Planning Advisory Service in 1964, 1971, 1991, and 2002. Additional factors are used by cities not included in the surveys. 10. The Planning Advisory Service found these two requirements in its 1991 survey (PAS 1991,18). 11. Requiring one parking space per employee increases the cost of employing labor but does not increase the cost of employing capital (computers, machines, etc.), and can thus encourage firms to substitute capital for labor in their production decisions. 12. Link (1975). The requirement was calculated for a 10,000-square-foot, three-story office building. A few cities included in Link s 1975 survey were not included in the comparison because the city s 1993 requirement was difficult to interpret. For example, in 1993 the City of Banning required one parking space for each employee on the largest shift plus one space per 350 square feet of floor area. Therefore, building size alone is insufficient to calculate the required parking. 13. Willson (1995, 30). 14. Beebe (2000) describes the history and technology of automated parking garages. The garage operations have backup computer systems for each feature, and the high degree of redundancy greatly reduces the probability of mechanical error. Articles on automated parking garages are in Parking Today (January 1998 and March and May 2003), Urban Land (May 1998), The Wall Street Journal (February 13, 1999), New York Times (September 21, 2003), and Slate (April 1, 2004). The title of the Slate article by Josh Levin ( The Valet You Don t Have to Tip ) suggests another advantage of robotic parking. See also the manufacturers websites at www.roboticparking.com and www.spacesaverparking.com. 15. This guidance system is used in the Smart Park garage at the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Information on the system is available at www.signalpark.com. 16. Some parking lots already serve as land banks for later development, and the interim use for parking is referred to as a taxpayer (Shoup 1969 and 1970). 17. Water quality is included in this list for two reasons. First, paved parking lots increase the impervious surface area in a city, reduce the area for water to percolate into the soil, and increase stormwater runoff. Parking lots also accumulate oil drippings that contain toxic metals such as chromium, and the runoff then pollutes water supplies. Second, the revenue from curb parking can pay for piped water and sewers in parking benefit districts. 18. Moudon (1987, 16). ZONINGPRACTICE 1.06 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION

1 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements Zoning Practice February 2006 Ask the Author Here are reader questions answered by Donald Shoup, FAICP, author of the January 2006 Zoning Practice article "The Practice of Parking Requirements." Question from Henry Jackson, AICP, Planning Manager, LFUCG Planning Division, Lexington, Kentucky: At the risk of vastly over-simplifying the issue, is there any sort of table of recommended "urban" off-street parking rates versus traditional suburban rates? Answer from author Donald Shoup: No, there is no table of recommended off-street parking requirements for urban sites. Most cities base their parking requirements on surveys of the peak parking demand observed at a few suburban sites that offer free parking and lack public transit. This policy is inappropriate even in suburban areas, and it is absurd in urban areas. Transportation engineers define parking demand as the peak parking occupancy observed at a site, without taking into account the price of parking. Cities then require new land uses to supply at least enough parking spaces to satisfy this peak demand, without considering how much these spaces cost. The maximum observed parking demand thus becomes the minimum required parking supply. Planning for parking is planning without prices. Planning for parking is a circular process, and it starts from the premise that curb parking is free. If developers do not supply enough spaces to satisfy the demand for free parking at a site, some cars drawn to the site will park at the curb, and neighbors will complain about spillover. To prevent this spillover, cities require developers to supply at least enough off-street spaces to satisfy the peak demand for free parking at every site. Ubiquitous free parking then inflates the demand for vehicle travel, and cities must limit urban density so that new development won't generate more vehicle trips than nearby roads can carry. This lower density spreads activities farther apart, and further increases vehicle travel and parking demand. Planners then use surveys of the parking demand at existing sites to estimate how many parking spaces to require for new sites. This circular logic explains why planning for transportation and land use has gone subtly, incrementally wrong. Planning for parking in the U.S. is really planning for free parking. Chapters 2 and 3 in The High Cost of Free Parking discuss how common errors in setting parking requirements inflate the parking supply. And here is a link to a short article, "Roughly Right vs. Precisely Wrong," that criticizes the data used to set parking requirements: www.uctc.net/access/access20.pdf. Question from Jeff Campbell: Initially, I just wanted to comment that I truly enjoyed your article. It was extremely informative. I have a question regarding parking for neighborhood churches. You briefly address the issue in a caption one of the pictures in the article. You noted that since more parishioners are driving to work, more communities are requiring off-street parking for churches and parking lots that replaced buildings once vital to the urban fabric. My question relates to similar issues. Is it typical for municipalities to require a church to have parking requirements for every use that the building may serve. For example, if a church building serves as a sanctuary, a banquet center, offices, Sunday school, are parking spaces required for each of these uses. Please keep in mind that none of these uses would be concurrent. Obviously, the congregation would not have church service and Sunday school at the same time. The pastor would not be in his office during service. If the municipality were to require parking spaces for each use, then a small church may be required to have 95 parking spaces for 150 parishioners. This does not make a lot of sense. As you stated in your article, this sort of planning to meet the peak demand is unnecessary. A parking provision for all these non-concurrent uses seems ludicrous. In your experience, is this

2 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements sort of ordinance or requirement typical, or does this type or requirement represent a rogue ordinance? The alternative, more sensible, parking interpretation for a church with these non-concurrent uses is to require one parking space for three church seats, would it not? Answer from author Donald Shoup: The common planning practice of requiring enough spaces to meet the peak demand for free parking is particularly inappropriate at land uses with short, sharp peaks in demand. The peak parking occupancy at a church may last for only a few hours each week. Using this peak demand to set a minimum parking requirement leaves many parking spaces empty almost all the time. The full cost of the parking lot is incurred to serve a few hours each week, so the cost per hour the parking spaces are occupied can be enormous. Religious leaders advise, "Do not build the church for Easter Sunday," but planners ignore this advice for the church parking requirements. Because the required parking is so expensive and is used so infrequently, churches often try to provide fewer spaces than the zoning demands. Where the parking requirement for a church is based on the number of fixed seats or the linear feet of permanent seating, for example, churches can evade the limit by using folding chairs instead of seats attached to the floor. And because some churches don't want to pay for parking spaces they use only on Sundays, they take advantage of the folding-chair loophole, as the New York Times explains: There is a stretch of Flushing, Queens, where Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Hindus worship within blocks of one another without a hint of sectarian strife. When it comes to parking spaces, though, it is all-out war. Every Sunday, a flood of cars descends on the neighborhood, thanks in large part to its dozens of newly built Korean churches. City law requires houses of worship to provide parking spaces for their parishioners if they have seating fixed to the floor, but many of the churches use folding chairs and are thus not covered by that rule. For years, residents have complained bitterly about that situation and the ungodly noise, the crowds and the cars that often block their driveways. Parking requirements can also prevent a church from occupying a site. The San Diego Union- Tribune reported on a typical dispute about church parking. The Community of Praise Baptist Church rented an aging storefront for their services in a part of National City, California, that is zoned for churches. Six months after occupying the vacated furniture store with no off-street parking, the church found that it had neglected to check the city's parking requirements. In defense of the church, a member of the City Council who drove past the church on Sundays and saw available parking argued that the church offered more customers to local businesses and placed more people in the high-crime area during times when the area was a ghost town. "The Lord placed us here," Pastor E. M. Williams said. Nevertheless, the City Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny an occupancy permit because there weren't enough parking spaces. Parking requirements can freeze older buildings in their existing uses, or even prevent any feasible use at all. If a building doesn't have the parking spaces required for a new use, zoning won't allow the new use even if all other planning requirements are met. Parking requirements have become a moral imperative, and in planning disputes they are invoked in nonnegotiable terms, like sacred cows. All it takes to prohibit a new use for an older building is to say "It doesn't have all the required parking." People who oppose a project for any reason can cite the lack of required parking as the reason for objecting to it, as though parking were the real issue. When a proposed new restaurant, for example, requests a variance to open without the required number of off-street parking spaces, protests often come from existing restaurants that want to stifle competition, even if the site is in a derelict part of town where everyone else would like to see a new restaurant. The frequent references to parking requirements in planning disputes make it appear that everyone always insists on more parking, including even environmentalists who are no friends of the car. Consider the dispute in 2002 over a 22-acre, $42-million megachurch proposed on the south side of Chicago. Naturally, anything that big raises land-use planning questions, and the opponents usually invoke parking requirements as a reason to reject a development or scale it back. Referring to the issue of whether 2,000 parking spaces would be enough for the new Salem Baptist church, the Reverend James Meeks said, "I don't care if Jesus is a member of your church, the City Council zoning board will not pass a project that doesn't have the proper amount of parking." Chapter 17 in The High Cost of Free Parking recommends a solution to the dilemma of church parking: cities should allow nonresidents to pay for curb parking in a neighborhood, and they should set with the prices for nonresident parking to ensure that demand does not exceed the supply of spaces. This arrangement is called a "parking benefit district." Parking benefit districts are similar to parking permit districts because residents can park free on the streets in front of their homes. The benefit districts differ from conventional permit districts in two ways:

3 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements 1. Nonresidents can to park on the streets in a benefit district if they pay the fair market price. 2. The city earmarks the resulting revenue to finance added public services in the district. The price for nonresident parking in a benefit district can be set high enough to ensure vacancies for both residents (who park free) and nonresidents (who pay to park). The new revenue can finance additional public services in the neighborhood, beyond those provided everywhere in the city. The city can clean the streets more often, fill potholes, repair the sidewalks, plant trees, remove graffiti, preserve historic buildings, or put utility wires underground in the neighborhoods where the benefit districts generate revenue. Seen from the residents' side of the bargain, charging nonresidents for curb parking resembles Monty Python's plan to solve Britain's economic problems by taxing all foreigners living abroad. To answer your question, then, I do not think cities should require any off-street parking for churches. Each congregation can make its own decisions about parking, with or without divine guidance. If the neighborhoods surrounding churches become parking benefit districts, higher prices for nonresident parking on Sundays can manage demand and settle the strife. We need a new Golden Rule for the price of parking: Charge others what they would charge you. Question from Benjamin S. Lyman, Community Development Department, City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska: In our downtown core, which is also our historic district, we have adopted a parking overlay district where no off-street parking is required when existing structures are re-used. This has a great effect on allowing developers to re-use historic buildings without resulting in more off-street parking. In this overlay district, however, we do require 40 percent of the standard off-street parking requirement for new construction. Since off-street parking is not desirable in terms of retaining the historic character of the district or in terms of promoting walkability, we are interested in simply abolishing all parking requirements in this area. Our consultant for re-writing our historic district design standards brought up a concern regarding this proposal if we abolish all parking requirements in the historic district, developers could tear down existing one- and two-story historic buildings and construct new three- or four-story buildings (we have a fairly low height restriction that prevents taller buildings), as they would not have to provide any parking for the new structure. Do you have any suggestions as to how we can protect the existing historic structures and still promote development of existing empty lots while not requiring off-street parking that we don't want in the area anyway? Our Planning Commission is interested in using a Local Improvement District to fund construction of centralized parking for the district in an equitable way, but the business community strongly opposes this. We have also discussed establishing a Business Improvement District, as this would likely be an easier sell to the business community, but it seems that a BID works better for maintenance of structures than it does for construction. Last but not least, a fee-in-lieu of parking program has been in the works for well over 10 years, but has never been adopted. I'm working on reviving the effort to adopt it, but the same question regarding protection of historic buildings applies to this effort (our existing parking overlay districts are larger than the historic district, and include many historic buildings outside the historic district). So although we've got a lot of support for changing our parking requirements & management in the downtown area, the crux of many of the discussions comes back to historic preservation, and as far as I can tell, your discussion of historic preservation does not apply, due to our existing parking overlay districts. Any ideas? Thanks for a great book, and all your work on rectifying the horrible situations that have resulted from parking requirements. Answer from author Donald Shoup: Thanks for your questions. I will first discuss how parking requirements affect redevelopment in historic districts, and then the issue of in-lieu fees in historic districts. Do Off-Street Parking Requirements Deter Redevelopment? Your consultant makes an interesting argument about using off-street parking requirements to deter the redevelopment of historic sites. Off-street parking requirements do deter redevelopment-even in blighted areas the city wants to redevelop. Cities sometimes deliberately use high parking requirements as an indirect way to discourage specific land uses. If residents oppose fast food restaurants, for example, a higher parking requirement can make it more difficult to build them. But this strategy creates even more problems because the fast food restaurants

4 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements that do get built have supersize parking lots that are asphalt eyesores, and residents dislike them even more. The right way to discourage an undesired land use is to regulate the offending aspects of the land use, not simply to require more parking spaces that make that land use even more undesirable. Consider the broader implications of your consultant's recommendation to use off-street parking requirements to deter redevelopment in your historic district. Off-street parking requirements retard the redevelopment of all property, not just historic property. In this way, off-street parking requirements reduce the supply and increase the price of housing. If even a reduced parking requirement of 40 percent of the standard off-street parking requirement can prevent redevelopment, consider how your city's standard parking requirement must prevent redevelopment everywhere, even in neighborhoods where you want to encourage higher density. Planners long ago noticed that parking requirements restrict housing construction. In 1935 Los Angeles began to require one off-street parking space per dwelling unit for multifamily housing, and a 1948 article in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners noted a surprising result: "In many cases, the number of garage spaces actually controlled the number of dwelling units which could be accommodated on a lot." Planners have also long known that restricting the supply of housing, parking requirements inevitably increase rents. In 1961, Oakland began to require one space per dwelling unit for apartment buildings. Data collected in a study of 45 apartment projects developed in the four years before Oakland required parking, and 19 projects developed in the two years afterward found that the construction cost per apartment increased by 18 percent, and the number of apartments on a typical lot fell by 30 percent. The study attributed these effects to the parking requirements. The zoning change made prior densities impossible without underground garages. This increased the cost of development if the same density were to be achieved before and after the zoning change... The developers interviewed stated that the increased pre-development land costs encouraged development of an apartment with a higher rent structure. Developers said that adding an apartment required another parking space, but enlarging an apartment did not; they therefore built fewer but larger apartments. Reluctant to build expensive underground garages, developers reduced the number of apartments and devoted more land to surface parking. Chapter 5 in The High Cost of Free Parking assembles much more evidence showing that off-street parking requirements reduce the supply and increase the cost of housing. In particular, requiring a fixed number of parking spaces per dwelling unit disproportionately increases the cost of small apartments, and makes them uneconomical. This policy clearly discourages small apartments, but many cities require the same number of parking spaces regardless of dwelling-unit size. A survey in California's Silicon Valley found that half the cities have the same parking requirement for any size unit, whether a small studio or a five-bedroom penthouse. I do not recommend using off-street parking requirements as the best way to deter redevelopment in historic areas. If you do not want more parking in your historic district, you should not require it. Some cities offer tax abatements to owners who donate easements on historic properties (the Mills Act in California is an example of legislation for this purpose). In-Lieu Fees in Historic Districts If you do keep the parking requirements for new development in your historic district, but do not want on-site parking at each new development, you can require developers to pay in-lieu fees for all the required parking, rather than provide the parking itself. Chapter 9 in The High Cost of Free Parking explains how the policy has worked well in Carmel, California. You can use the in-lieu fees to build public parking structures in appropriate locations, or to improve sidewalks and public transit. Question from Paul Isaks, Transport Specialist, ACT Planning and Land Authority, Canberra, Australia: I have a question relating to Donald Shoup's February 2006 Q&A response. The 85 percent utilization rate intrigues me. What is the basis for this figure? Why not 90 percent or some other figure? Is it possible to achieve 85 percent utilization for all parking areas in a district, or is this a target figure better applied to the total of all parking spaces in all carparks in a commercial area or center? (I haven't read The High Cost of Free Parking yet, but I have it on order and hope that my copy will be here in the next week or two.) I'd be interested to hear. Answer from author Donald Shoup: The 85 percent occupancy rate is only an approximate goal for curb parking, but any sensible goal

5 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements would not be far different from 85 percent. What about 90 percent, for example, which would still leave a few vacant spaces? This would increase the number of cars parked at the curb by only 6 percent, but would reduce the number of vacant spaces by a third. So you don t get many more cars parked, but you significantly reduce the ease of finding a vacant space. Drivers would have spend more time cruising to find a vacant space, and they would also have to spend more time walking from their cars to their destinations and back. Perhaps one empty space on each side of every block is the most sensible goal. If there are an average of eight curb spaces on each block, seven should be occupied and one empty. Given the stochastic nature of arrivals and departures, you will need to trade off some time with two or more vacancies so that you have less time with no vacancies. Basically, I would say that it is hard to make a case for any curb parking occupancy goal other than about 85 or 90 percent. I would argue that cities should try to achieve this occupancy goal on every block. For example, if all curb spaces are occupied in one part of downtown but half of the curb spaces are empty in another part of downtown, the meter rates should be raised where all spaces are full and reduced where half of the spaces are empty. Cities can rely on prices to maintain a few curb vacancies and to create turnover. Prices cannot constantly fluctuate to maintain an occupancy rate of exactly 85 percent, of course, but they can vary sufficiently to avoid chronic overcrowding or underuse. If about 15 percent of spaces are vacant, the price is right. A variable price for curb parking may seem impractical at first, but the price of metered curb parking already varies between daytime (when the meters operate) and nighttime (when parking is free). Meters are usually free at night even though the curb spaces may be crowded. Free parking at night probably stems from the idea that parking meters are intended to create turnover. It does not make sense to have one-hour parking meters enforced at 3 a.m., but it does make sense to charge for parking if it is scarce. When spaces are allocated by prices rather than time limits, the price may be lower at night, but need not be zero. Other transportation prices also vary according to supply and demand. The price of gasoline, for example, fluctuates in response to the balance between supply and demand, and it is hard to imagine gasoline being sold any other way. Indeed, when gasoline prices were controlled for a brief period in the 1970s, the results were disastrous. The long lines of cars at filling stations dramatically showed the disadvantages of not letting prices fluctuate to balance supply and demand. Cars searching for underpriced curb parking are mixed in with those actually going somewhere, but they are comparable to cars waiting in line for underpriced gasoline. The price of most commercial parking varies by time of day and day of the week. Parking lot operators instinctively raise prices when their occupancy rates regularly approach 100 percent, and some operators claim they do not own a full sign because they never need one. To set the prices for on-street parking, cities can use the traditional four-step process that commercial operators use to set prices for off-street parking: 1. Look to see if your lot is full or empty. 2. Check your competition. 3. If you are full and they are empty, raise your price. 4. If you are empty and they are full, lower your price. Question from Brian Gibson, Transportation Planner, Fargo-Moorhead Council of Governments, Fargo, North Dakota: I understand your basic premise market driven parking will help capture the true cost of parking (and automobiles in a general sense) and more efficiently regulate the need for parking. But, in Fargo-Moorhead our planners are considering not just minimum parking requirements, but maximum parking requirements also. They are tired of retailers demanding acres and acres of free parking when the planners have no tools to limit their request to a "reasonable" size. By adopting market driven parking requirements, I can foresee that Big Box Inc. will gladly pay for the convenience of oversized parking lots because they have the revenue to do so, but Mom & Pop across town won't or can't and suddenly there is a question of equality. Mom & Pop will cry that they can't compete with Big Box Inc. unless they have free parking too. I can also see how a parking benefit district would work in a CBD with lots of density and shared parking already. But out in suburbia it seems like it would work to keep the large, wealthy retailers entrenched at the top of the pyramid, and would even contribute to pulling more jobs out of the CBD as successful downtown businesses move to the urban fringe in search of the free "convenient" parking that their customers "deserve". It would even become a marketing tool for them. How do you reconcile the questions of market justice?

6 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements What part if any do you see maximum parking restrictions playing in the current "free parking" environment? What part if any do you see maximum parking restrictions playing in the "market driven" environment? Answer from author Donald Shoup: Most cities have minimum parking requirements, not maximum parking limits. Despite their ambivalence on whether to require or restrict parking, planners always seem to regulate it. This behavior recalls a Soviet maxim: "What is not required must be prohibited." American cities put a floor under the parking supply to satisfy the peak demand for free parking, and then cap development density to limit vehicle trips. European cities, in contrast, often cap the number of parking spaces to avoid congesting the roads, and combine this strategy with a floor on allowed development density to encourage walking, cycling, and public transport. That is, Americans require parking and limit density, while Europeans require density and limit parking. The American policy looks exceptionally foolish when combined with complaints about traffic congestion and calls for smart growth. Maximums versus Minimums There is probably as little analysis to justify specific parking caps as there is to justify the specific parking minimums, and the parking caps may, by default, become the parking minimums for many developments. Nevertheless, parking caps make far more sense than minimum parking requirements as a planning policy. A few American cities-boston, New York, and San Francisco-do limit parking in their downtowns, but even these cities require parking everywhere else. If parking caps reduce vehicle trips, parking requirements surely increase them. If we want to reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption, and air pollution, the simplest and most productive single reform of American zoning would be to declare that all the existing off-street parking requirements are maximums rather than minimums, without changing any of the numbers, as the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea did in 1995. From that point on we could let the market take care of parking, and let city planners take care of the many vital issues that really demand their attention. Minimum parking requirements, with no maximum, imply that cities care only about having enough parking spaces, and that there can never be too many. But as Jane Jacobs (1962) says, The main purpose of downtown streets is transaction, and this function can be swamped by the torrent of machine circulation. The more downtown is broken up and interspersed with parking lots and garages, the duller and deader it becomes in appearance, and there is nothing more repellant than a dead downtown.... In a panicky effort to combat the suburbs on their own terms, something downtown cannot do, we are sacrificing the fundamental strengths of downtown its variety and choice, its bustle, its interest, its compactness, its compelling message that this is not a way-station, but the very intricate center of things. The only reason people come downtown or set up business downtown at all is because downtown packs so much into such a compact area. Because downtown packs so much into a small area, people are willing to visit it even if they have to pay for parking and then walk to get there. A successful downtown must be accessible, which means traffic and parking, but too much parking enfeebles a downtown. Fred Kent, president of Partners for Public Spaces, describes the difference in parking "requirements" for a great place and a dull place: Parking is important where the place isn't important. In a place like Faneuil Hall in Boston it's amazing how far people are willing to walk. In a dull place, you want a parking space right in front of where you're going. Kent also says minimum parking requirements "assure that a place will be uninteresting." Or as Jane Holtz Kay put it, "The more parking, the less place. The more place, the less parking." Where there are plenty of off-street parking spaces, "the pedestrian is now as likely to be ambushed by a car sliding from some underground garage as visually assaulted by gap-toothed parking lots and eerie garage facades." Similarly, urban designer Dom Nozzi (2003) says, When we hear the claim that there is "not enough parking downtown," what we are really hearing is that there is "not enough free parking a few feet from where I want to go." To demand such an impossible supply of parking is to ask a downtown to compete with outlying suburbs on suburban terms, that is, asking for the impossible. Off-street parking requirements have different meanings for new buildings and for existing buildings. For a new building, parking requirements determine the number of spaces that a developer must supply. For an existing building, parking requirements limit the uses that a city will allow. Given the haphazard methods planners use to set parking requirements, they make

7 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements many important land-use decisions with no rational basis. Equity for Mom & Pop In regard to the question of whether maximum parking limits will harm Mom & Pop stores, I think minimum parking requirements do far more harm. Do Mom & Pop stores really have so much money that they want to build new quarters on greenfield sites and provide lots of free parking? In reality, minimum parking requirements often make it hard for Mom & Pop stores to reuse older buildings. For example, if a building has 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, most zoning codes will not allow it to be converted to a new use with a requirement of more than 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet unless more parking spaces are added or a variance is obtained. Adding new spaces to an older building is usually out of the question because there is simply no room. Older buildings are thus limited to uses for which the existing parking supply meets the parking requirements. As one consultant wrote to me, "There are heartbreaking stories of people who are trying to make use of vacant buildings but are forbidden to do so by onerous parking requirements." I recommend that cities should charge market prices for curb parking and eliminate off-street parking requirements. To judge whether charging for curb parking is fair, we can compare it with the current alternative-off-street parking requirements that increase the prices of everything else. With off-street parking requirements, even households without cars pay for parking indirectly in the form of higher prices for everything they buy. In contrast, when curb spaces are priced at market rates, only parkers must absorb the cost. Charging for curb parking thus seem fairer than imposing off-street parking requirements, especially when for those who are too poor to own a car. The 2001 National Household Travel Survey found that households with incomes less than $25,000 a year are nine times more likely not to own a car than households with incomes greater than $25,000 a year. Similarly, households living in a rented residence are six times more likely than homeowners not to own a car. Because cars are unequally distributed in the population, charging drivers for the curb parking they use is fairer than forcing everyone to pay for off-street parking whether they use it or not. Parking requirements take money from the poor to subsidize the better off: drivers park without paying, while nondrivers pay without parking. I am not saying we should pay more for parking. Off-street parking requirements force everyone, including the carless, to pay too much for parking indirectly. I am saying we should pay for parking directly. Cities can individualize decollectivize the cost of parking, so that we pay less for parking if we use less. While we all want to park free, we should not elevate this wish into a social judgment that charging for curb parking is unfair, especially when we compare it with the alternative-off-street parking requirements that impose a heavy burden even on those with the least ability to pay. Almost everyone will be better off by paying only for the parking they use, and not paying the high costs that off-street parking requirements impose on everyone. I have put a short summary of my recommendations for curb parking prices at this link: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/parking_on_a_great_street.pdf Question from Kaizer Rangwala, City of Farmers Branch Planning Department, Farmers Branch, Texas: Our first ring suburban city will get light rail services in 2010. Our vision for the transit area is a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly town center. The light rail transit agency owns a functional park and ride tract near the future station platform site. While the progressive transit agency would be interested in a public-private partnership for a mixed-use project with structured parking on their tract they would still like to retain a minimum number of parking spaces for their riders. Is there a strong link between free parking at transit stops and increased transit ridership. Answer from author Donald Shoup: Providing free parking at rail stations greatly increases the cost of transit oriented developments because parking spaces are more expensive in denser areas. A study by the California Department of Transportation points out the higher burden of parking requirements in TODs: Increased densities in TODs, coupled with the goal of improving accessibility for pedestrians to transit stations, often means building structured parking garages. Parking spaces in structures can cost from $10,000 to $30,000 each, compared to about $5,000 per space for surface parking... These increased costs can negatively affect the financial feasibility of projects, even if they are otherwise profitable. Hence, if the design and location of TODs enable a reduction in the number of parking spaces needed, the cost savings can be significant. If cities do not reduce the number of spaces required in a TOD by more than the increased cost

8 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements per space in structures, the cost of the required parking is higher in a TOD than in a conventional development. Suppose, for example, a city requires 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area in a conventional development, and the developer's cost of surface parking is $5,000 per space; the cost of the required parking is thus $20 per square foot of floor area. Suppose the city requires only 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet in a TOD, and the developer's cost of structured parking is $20,000 per space; the cost of the parking required for a TOD is thus $40 per square foot of floor area, or twice the cost in a conventional development. Rather than giving free parking to transit riders, I think transit agencies should consider developing their parking lots and requiring all developments to offer "Eco Passes" to their tenants. Several transit agencies-in Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake, and San Jose, for example-offer employers the option to buy Eco Passes that give all their employees the right to ride free on all local transit lines. This arrangement reduces to zero the employees' marginal cost of riding public transit, and therefore makes transit (in terms of perceived money cost) similar to driving and parking free. Because many commuters won't ride transit even when it is free, the transit agencies' cost per Eco Pass holder is low, and the agencies can therefore sell the Eco Passes at a surprisingly low price. In California's Silicon Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (SCVTA) charges between $5 and $80 a year per employee for Eco Passes, depending on the employer's location and number of employees. The price of an Eco Pass is much lower than that of a conventional pass. Because frequent riders often buy the conventional passes, transit agencies must price them on the assumption that buyers will use them frequently. The price of an Eco Pass is much lower because employers buy the Eco Passes for all commuters regardless of whether or not they ride transit. The SCVTA's price for its Eco Pass is only 1 to 19 percent of the price for its conventional pass ($420 a year). Allowing a TOD developer to offer low-cost Eco Passes in lieu of high-cost parking spaces can thus improve the TOD's financial feasibility. A study of travel patterns in California found that, in practice, TOD employers are far more likely to offer commuters free parking than a transit subsidy. In Los Angeles, for example, 89 percent of all commuters who worked in a TOD in Hollywood were offered free parking, while only 19 percent were offered a transit subsidy. In Orange County, 87 percent of commuters in a TOD in Anaheim were offered free parking, while only 8 percent were offered a transit subsidy. In San Diego, 83 percent of commuters in a TOD in Mission Valley were offered free parking, while only 17 percent were offered a transit subsidy. The TODs were also embedded in regions where free parking was the norm, and this free parking elsewhere had a major influence on the TOD residents' travel behavior. Among TOD residents, only 5 percent of those whose employers offered free parking rode transit to work, while 45 percent of those whose employers did not offer free parking rode transit. TODs will have little effect on travel behavior if parking remains free everywhere, even in the TODs themselves, and transit remains expensive. Providing Eco Passes instead of parking spaces will increase transit ridership, reduce the cost of transit-oriented development, improve urban design, and reduce traffic congestion, air pollution, and energy consumption. These benefits will come at low cost if the transit system has excess capacity, as most do. So to answer your specific question, I do not think that free parking at transit stops is necessary to increase ridership. Even where free parking does increase transit ridership, it is an extraordinarily expensive way to gain riders. TOD may be a far more productive use for valuable land at transit stops. Portland, Oregon, for example, is turning a park-and-ride lot at one rail station into a TOD. Converting free parking lots at rail stations into TODs with Eco Passes can increase rather than reduce transit ridership. Chapter 10 in The High Cost of Free Parking discusses the question of parking at transit oriented developments. Question from Kirk Westphal, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Is there a general rule of thumb that would help a large town or small city "sell" the case that they've reached the point where it would be advisable to begin conversion from surface to structured parking? A certain density of existing retail or office within a minimum area? Projected growth in commercial square footage? Land values? Answer from author Donald Shoup: In Parking Structures, Mary Smith of Walker Parking Consultants/Engineers shows that both surface parking and above-ground structured parking costs about $12,000 per space if the price of land is $30 per square foot. (See "Planning for Structured Parking," in Anthony Chrest, Mary Smith, Sam Bhuyan, Donald Monahan, and Mohammad Iqbal, Parking Structures, Third Edition, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.) Structured parking is cheaper than surface parking at land prices above $30 per square foot ($330 per square meter or $1.3 million per acre). The vast deserts of surface parking lots in many cities present a great opportunity as land banks

9 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements for future redevelopment. Urban designer Jonathan Barnett explains how land can be reclaimed from surface parking by building parking structures: A garage can absorb five or six acres of [surface] parking while occupying less than an acre itself... the cost of decanting the [surface] parking [into a garage] becomes the cost for the land that is made available. ( Redesigning Cities: Principles, Practice, Implementation, Chicago: Planners Press, 2003, p. 54-55). We can calculate the cost of recovering land from surface parking by building garages. An acre of surface parking contains about 130 parking spaces (at 330 square feet per parking space), so a six-acre lot will hold 780 spaces. If all 780 parking spaces are stacked on six levels in a garage that covers only one acre, the remaining five acres of land become available for development, without any reduction in the parking supply. If the construction cost is $10,000 per space, the total cost will be $7.8 million. The cost of the five vacated acres of land formerly used for surface parking is thus $1.6 million an acre ($7,800,000 5 acres = $1,560,000), or $36 a square foot. Appendix E in The High Cost of Free Parking compares the cost of surface and structured parking. Question from Terry Spence, AICP, Member of the Environmental Quality Advisory Council, Fairfax County, Virginia: How can the availability of parking impact the number of single-car drivers? Answer from author Donald Shoup: Thanks for your succinct question. The price of parking strongly affects travel choices, and the availability of free parking is invitation to drive to work alone. Free parking is the most common fringe benefit offered to workers in the US, and 95 percent of American automobile commuters park free at work. Almost every commuter who can choose between a private car and public transit will drive to work if there is free parking at work. Free parking at work helps explain why 91 percent of all commuters drive to work, and why 93 percent of their cars have only one occupant. Many solo drivers who park free would drive to work alone even if they had to pay for parking. But some solo drivers who park free would carpool, ride public transit, walk, or bike to work if they had to pay for parking; these commuters drive to work alone because they can park free. Case studies and statistical models suggest that, when compared with driver-paid parking, employer-paid parking increases the number of cars commuters drive to work by about 33 percent. Some employers offer commuters the option to take the cash equivalent of any parking subsidy offered. The choice between a parking subsidy or its cash equivalent shows that "free parking" has an opportunity cost-the forgone cash. The option to cash out a parking subsidy thus raises the effective price of commuter parking without charging for it. Commuters can continue to park free at work, but the cash option also rewards commuters who carpool, ride public transit, walk, or bike to work. California requires many employers to offer parking cash-out. This requirement applies only to employers who rent their parking spaces from a third party, so the employer breaks even when a commuter forgoes a rented parking space and takes the cash. Case studies of employers who offer parking cash out in Southern California show that it reduced vehicle travel to work by 12 percentequivalent to removing one of every eight cars from the road during peak commute hours. By reducing vehicle travel, it also reduced vehicle emissions by 12 percent. Parking cash out cost the employers only $2 a month per employee because they saved almost as much on parking as they paid in cash to commuters. Federal and state income tax revenues increased by $65 a year per employee because many commuters voluntarily traded their tax-exempt parking subsidies for taxable cash. Employers said that parking cash out is simple and fair, and that it helps recruit and retain workers. Parking cash out thus produces benefits for commuters, employers, taxpayers, cities, and the environment. It accomplishes all these goals simply by letting commuters choose how to spend their own money. Planning Advisory Service Report 532, Parking Cash Out, summarizes the research on how the price of parking affects commuting choices. Question from Roy Lopata, Planning Director, Newark, Delaware: Do you think that "cash in lieu of off-street spaces" systems, used by some communities to encourage quality downtown redevelopment is a hybrid form of pricing for parking? By the way, the Newark Planning Department, in addition to its traditional land-use regulatory role, administers downtown off-street parking in our community.

10 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements Answer from author Donald Shoup: In-lieu fees allow cities to price parking, but they are mainly a new way to subsidize parking. Some cities give developers the option to pay a fee in lieu of providing the required parking spaces. The cities then use the revenue to provide public parking spaces to replace the private parking spaces that the developers would have provided. These in-lieu fees give developers an alternative to providing the required parking spaces on-site. Chapter 9 in The High Cost of Free Parking explains and analyzes in-lieu fees. To learn about in-lieu programs, I surveyed planning officials in 47 cities that offer them: 24 in the United States, seven in Canada, six in the United Kingdom, six in Germany, two in South Africa, and one in Iceland. I consulted the officials who administer the in-lieu fees, and examined the fee ordinances and supporting documents. Planning officials reported that in-lieu fees provide several benefits for both cities and developers. These benefits fall into seven categories: 1. Flexibility. Developers gain a new option. If providing all the required parking spaces on-site would be difficult or too expensive, developers can instead pay the in-lieu fee. 2. Shared Parking. Public parking spaces built with the in-lieu revenue allow shared use among different sites whose peak parking demands occur at different times (a bank and a bar, for example), and fewer spaces are needed to meet the combined peak parking demands. 3. Park Once. When all businesses have individual parking lots, they want only their customers to park there. Once customers have left the store, the owners want them out of the lot as soon as possible, requiring the customers to drive to another private lot in order to make a second stop in a nearby business. Shared public parking allows drivers to park once and visit multiple sites on foot, thereby reducing vehicle traffic and increasing foot traffic. 4. Historic Preservation. Parking requirements can discourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings if the additional parking spaces required for a new use are difficult to provide on-site. By removing the requirement for on-site parking spaces, in-lieu fees make it easier to restore historic buildings and rehabilitate historic areas. The owner of an old brownstone, for instance, may want to rehabilitate it and turn it into a restaurant, but cannot because it lacks the required parking. Without the in-lieu option, the building may stay unused, or worse yet be torn down and replaced by a parking lot. With the in-lieu option, the building is restored and the neighborhood gets a new place to eat. 5. Consolidation. Some cities also allow developers and property owners to pay in-lieu fees to remove the existing required parking spaces. This option consolidates scattered parking spaces, assists infill development, improves urban design, and encourages conversion of parking lots to higher-and-better uses that provide more services, yield more revenue, and employ more people. All property owners, not just developers, can use more of their land for buildings and less for parking. 6. Fewer Variances. Where providing the required parking is difficult, developers often request variances to reduce the parking requirements for their sites. These variances weaken the general plan, require administration, and create unearned economic windfalls for some developers but not others. By making fewer variances necessary, in-lieu fees allow cities to create a level playing field for all developers. 7. Better Urban Design. Parking requirements typically result in surface parking lots for smaller buildings that cannot support their own parking garages. Because in-lieu fees allow stores to meet their parking requirements without on-site parking, they allow continuous storefronts without "dead" gaps created by parking lots. Developers can undertake infill projects without assembling large parcels for on-site parking, and architects have greater design freedom. The public parking structures consume less land than would be required if each site provided an on-site parking lot, and cities can place the structures where they interfere least with vehicle and pedestrian circulation. To improve the streetscape, some cities dedicate the first floor of public parking structures to retail uses. The in-lieu policy thus contributes to a better looking, safer, and more walkable city. Planners in most of the surveyed cities said that the in-lieu fees have become a form of administrative relief for developers who find it difficult to provide the required parking on site. In practice, the in-lieu fees give developers an alternative to providing expensive on-site parking spaces, and the shared public parking gives downtown the park-once advantages of shopping malls.

11 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements In response to your question about in-lieu fees and pricing, the city can charge for parking in the public spaces financed by the in-lieu fees. One common practice in public parking garages financed by in-lieu fees is to offer one or two hours of free parking, and to charge for any additional time parked. So I would add the ability to price parking to the previous seven advantages that I listed. By putting an official dollar value on the cost of parking spaces, the in-lieu fees produce an unintended side effect: they reveal the cost of satisfying the off-street parking requirements. The cost of providing the required parking is usually bundled into the total cost of development with no separate accounting, but the in-lieu fees put the cost of required parking spaces out in the open. We can therefore use the in-lieu fees to estimate the cost of satisfying a city's parking requirement. This estimate can be called the "parking impact fee" implicit in the off-street parking requirement. The simplest way to explain a parking impact fee is to calculate it for one land use office buildings. The parking impact fee imposed by a parking requirement depends on (1) the number of parking spaces required, and (2) the in-lieu fee per space. To see how a parking requirement and an in-lieu fee are equivalent to an impact fee, consider the in-lieu program in Palo Alto, California. Palo Alto requires four spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and in 2002 its in-lieu fee was $50,994 per space. A developer who provides no parking must pay the city an in-lieu fee of $203,976 per 1,000 square feet of office space ($50,994 x 4), or $204 per square foot ($203,976) 1,000). The parking requirement and the in-lieu fee together are therefore equivalent to an impact fee of $204 per square foot of office space. In-lieu fees do not impose any burden on urban development; they merely give developers a new option that can reduce the burden of meeting a parking requirement. Parking requirements impose the burden on development, and the in-lieu fees quantify it. Normally, the cost parking is hidden in the overall cost of development, but the in-lieu fees expose the extraordinarily high cost of providing all the required parking spaces. As with most impact fees, it is not clear exactly who pays for the required parking, but someone has to landowners, investors, workers, developers, and users of real estate. It is clear that drivers don't pay, and it would be a mistake to assume that, because drivers don't pay, nobody pays. The cost of parking doesn't cease to exist just because drivers park free. Given the high cost of required parking spaces, and their harmful consequences, planners should not uncritically assume that the demand for parking automatically justifies off-street parking requirements. Demand depends on price, but planners rarely think about the price drivers pay for parking, or what the required spaces cost. Drivers park free for 99 percent of their trips, and parking requirements that satisfy the existing demand for parking will satisfy the demand for free parking, no matter how much it costs. In-lieu fees unveil the high cost of free parking. Question from Randy Nicholson, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Town of Hilton Head Island, South Carolina Because of our seasonal market, we always struggle with parking standards. We have "maximum" parking standards to reduce pervious areas and provide additional greenspace. Developers tell us tenants go where parking is convenient for customers. Developers try to provide more spaces than our standards allow. Why would developers give up parking, knowing the tenant may just move down the street where the parking is plentiful and his customer parks out front? P.S.: Developers of Bethesda Row in Maryland, a poster child for CNU, notes they were successful because most of the parking was provided by Montgomery County. The developer's website notes: Public Parking There are 17 public garages or lots with over 6,600 spaces and 766 on-street meters within walking distance of the movies, shops and restaurants. Garage and lot public parking is FREE on Saturdays, Sunday and holidays. On the street, parking is FREE on Sundays and holidays only. Remember, be sure to read all signs and check the meter color code system. Copper meters have a one-hour time limit, blue meters have two hours and silver meters have nine or more hours. Private Parking Paid parking lots operated by Federal Realty are located on Bethesda Avenue behind the Rio Grande Cafe and in the old Giant parking lot, as well as on Elm Street by Jaleo. Valet Parking Many restaurants offer valet parking for a reasonable fee. Answer from author Donald Shoup:

12 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements I can suggest several possible strategies to deal with requests to provide more parking than the city allows for a development. The city can require developers who want to provide more than the required number of spaces to: 1. Pay the city a fee for each additional space. This will test the strength of the developers' desire to provide more parking. 2. Put all their parking underground. 3. Reduce parking demand before they are allowed to increase their parking supply. For example, a development's owners could be required to offer free transit passes to every employee as a condition for increasing the parking supply. The free transit passes may reduce parking demand by enough so the developer would not want to increase the parking supply. Hotels could be required to offer free transit passes to all guests. 4. Unbundle all parking in the development. That is, the developer's owners would have to charge tenants separately for parking. Employers would have to charge employees for parking. Hotels would have to charge guests separately for parking. For example, Bellevue, Washington, requires downtown office buildings with more than 50,000 square feet to identify the cost of parking as a separate line item in all leases, with the minimum monthly rate per space not less than twice the price of a bus pass. Because the price of a bus pass was $72 a month in 2003, the minimum price of a leased parking space was $144 a month. This lease rate for parking does not increase the overall cost of occupying office space in a building because the payment for the office space itself declines as a result. In other words, unbundling separates the rent for offices and parking, but does not increase their sum. Bellevue's unbundling policy makes parking cash out easy for employers and profitable for commuters. If more cities require unbundled parking in leases, many more employers will be able to offer parking cash out, and many more commuters will carpool, ride the bus, walk, or bike to work. Question from Mike Brusseau: Our firm was hired to evaluate the impacts at build-out of a small, somewhat isolated coastal community in New York. The community contains roughly 6,000 residents and has a traditional "Main Street" business district. Our client has asked us to investigate such things as impacts to: water, sewage disposal, emergency services, the local school district and street system, the environment, housing stock, and others. One issue that has arisen is the potential impact of projected residential growth on the availability of and demand for parking in the downtown. That is, there is a shortage of parking. Since the business district and community are somewhat isolated, it is anticipated that the introduction of new residents, by itself, will increase activity in the downtown, thereby exacerbating the parking shortage. (We understand we can easily estimate new parking demand needed to serve future stores and industries based on the community's off-street parking requirements outlined in its Town Code, but we have been asked to address the parking issue from a different perspective.) We have conducted some research, and have not identified an acceptable way by which to project the number of new parking spaces needed in the downtown to serve the estimated increase in population in the community. Do you have any suggestions in terms of a suitable methodology or could you point us toward resources that may be helpful? One avenue we considered involves trying to find information about the average number of trips per week per household for groceries, dining, recreation, parks and entertainment, library, town hall, etc. Answer from author Donald Shoup: I cannot recommend an acceptable way to project the number of new parking spaces needed in the downtown to serve the estimated increase in population in the community. And I strongly advise against trying to load the cost of downtown parking onto the cost of new housing. Trying to impose the cost of commercial parking in the downtown onto the cost of new housing outside the downtown exemplifies one of the worst tendencies in American urban planning. Cities try to make everyone except drivers pay for parking. Cities require off-street parking spaces because the market supposedly fails to provide enough of them. But the market fails to provide many things at a price everyone can afford. It fails to provide affordable housing for many families, for instance, and those who argue for affordable housing usually find themselves in an uphill battle. But cities have without a second thought imposed planning requirements to ensure affordable parking. Rather than charge fair market prices for on-street parking, cities require ample off-street parking for every land use. As a result, most of us drive almost everywhere we go.

13 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements Parking profoundly affects the markets for both transportation and land, but is treated as an afterthought, and the idea of adding downtown parking to the existing off-street parking requirements for suburban housing is dangerous nonsense. Off-street parking requirements increase the cost of housing, subsidize cars, distort transportation choices, encourage sprawl, burden low-income households, damage the economy, and degrade the environment. Off-street parking requirements are a disease masquerading as a cure. In city planning, free parking has become more important than affordable housing. Parking requirements bundle the cost of parking spaces into the cost of dwelling units, and therefore shift the cost of parking a car into the cost of renting or owning a home making cars more affordable but housing more expensive. The higher the parking requirement, the higher the cost of housing. When the U.S. Census Bureau surveyed owners and managers of multifamily rental housing to learn which governmental regulations made their operations most difficult, parking requirements were cited more frequently than any other regulation except property taxes. Parking requirements are now firmly ensconced in planning practice, but experience suggests that future planners may regret them. Urban planners had a habit in the 1950s and 1960s of hurling themselves with gusto into implementing some truly bad ideas. High-rise public housing projects were once state-of-the-art, but many cities have demolished them. Urban renewal (which Jane Jacobs compared to bloodletting) was once the best hope of downtowns, but most cities have abandoned it in favor of historic preservation. Similarly, some cities have shifted from minimum parking requirements to parking caps, and other cities may follow. Consider also these 180-degree turns in transportation planning. In the 1950s, many cities created one-way street systems to speed traffic through downtowns, and in the 1990s converted them back to two-way streets to calm traffic. Similarly, in the 1950s, many cities eliminated on-street parking in downtowns to reduce congestion, and built off-street parking to replace it. In the 1990s, a common strategy was to restore on-street parking to calm traffic, and to redevelop off-street parking lots to increase downtown density. We do eventually recognize our mistakes, and we may some day condemn off-street parking requirements just as we now condemn the public housing and urban renewal disasters of the 20th century. I don t know if your client is the city or the developer, but I would urge the city to abandon the unwise notion of trying to load the cost of downtown parking onto the cost of new housing elsewhere in the city. Chapter 5 in The High Cost of Free Parking discusses how parking requirements drive up the cost of housing, and it presents ample evidence to use in the case you ask about. Question from Stephen J. Kerlin, AICP, Director of Planning and Economic Development, Town of Ashland, Massachusetts: Our community of 15,000 has a hamlet-style downtown. There are municipal parking lots for 125 plus spaces in this area. Nevertheless, there is no required parking requirements downtown. We are in the process of rezoning downtown into a mixed use environment with greater density with upper story usage. We need to establish some minimum requirements for parking without infringing on current businesses and their lack of off-street parking. Any thoughts? Answer from author Donald Shoup: A hamlet-style downtown sounds delightful, and I hope you can preserve it. But I don't think off-street parking requirements will help. Quite the opposite. Off-street parking requirements will reduce the land available for both shops and housing, and will increase the cost of adding housing. Developers, landowners, and merchants all have ample incentives to provide enough parking for their customers and tenants. To preserve your downtown while increasing density, I suggest requiring better parking design rather than more parking spaces. The market gives developers a strong incentive to provide adequate parking because lenders may be unwilling to finance projects with inadequate parking and tenants may be unwilling to rent space in them. But the market provides little incentive to improve parking design. Developers are more likely to spend money on a marble-veneered lobby (which will increase the value of the building) rather than on landscaping the parking lot (which will increase the value of the whole neighborhood). If you have an urban design framework guiding the character of the built environment, quality-based parking requirements can reinforce the desired character of each neighborhood. Quality-based requirements can be quite simple. Here is an ordinance that prohibits parking lots from dominating the streets in commercial districts: No parking shall be located between the building and the front property line. On corner lots, no parking shall be located between the building and either of the two (2) front

14 of 14 The Practice of Parking Requirements property lines. (City of SeaTac, Washington) More ideas about improving the design of parking are included in Chapter 3 of The High Cost of Free Parking and in an article, "Quantity versus Quality in Off-Street Parking Requirements," forthcoming in the Journal of the American Planning Association. But I understand that citizens will worry about how higher density will increase the demand for parking. What can you do to ensure that this increased demand will not create a parking shortage? I suggest that you consider these two policies: (1) charge performance-based prices for curb parking, and (2) return the revenue to pay for added public services. These two policies can improve parking and increase the economic vitality of your downtown. Performance-based parking prices Performance-based prices will balance the varying demand for parking with the fixed supply of spaces. We can call this balance between demand and supply the Goldilocks principle of performance-based parking prices: The price is too high if many spaces are vacant, and too low if no spaces are vacant. When a few vacant spaces are available everywhere, the prices are just right. If prices are adjusted to yield one or two vacant spaces in every block (about 85 percent occupancy), everyone will see that curb parking is readily available. No one can say that performance-based parking prices will drive customers away if most curb spaces are occupied all the time. Prices that produce an occupancy rate of about 85 percent can be called performance-based for three reasons. First, curb parking will perform efficiently. Most spaces will be occupied, but drivers will always be able to find a vacant space. Second, the transportation system will perform efficiently. Cruising for curb parking will not congest traffic, waste fuel, and pollute the air. Third, the economy will perform efficiently. The price of parking will be higher when demand is higher, and this higher price will encourage rapid parking turnover. Drivers will park, buy something, and leave quickly so that other drivers can use the spaces. For parking, transportation, and economic efficiency, cities should set prices to yield about an 85 percent occupancy rate. Local revenue return Performance-based prices for curb parking can yield ample public revenue. If the city returns this revenue to pay for added public spending on the metered streets, residents and local merchants will support the performance-based prices. The added funds can pay to clean and maintain the sidewalks, plant trees, improve lighting, bury overhead utility wires, remove graffiti, and provide other public improvements. Put yourself in the shoes of a merchant in an older business district where curb parking is free and customers complain about a parking shortage. Suppose the city installs meters and charges prices that produce a few vacancies. Everyone who wants to shop in the district can park quickly, and the meter money is spent to clean the sidewalks and provide security. These added public services make the business district a place where people want to be, rather than merely a place where anyone can park free if they can find a space. Returning the meter revenue generated by the district to the district for the district can convince merchants and property owners to support the idea of performance-based prices for curb parking. Performance-based prices will improve curb parking by creating a few vacancies, the added meter revenue will pay to improve public services, and these added public services will create political support for performance-based prices. And curb parking will always be free if there is no shortage at a zero price. Redwood City, California, sets performance-based prices to achieve an 85 percent occupancy rate in its downtown, and it returns the parking revenue to pay for added public services in the downtown. Once the merchants and property owners understood that the downtown would receive its meter revenue, they strongly supported the policy, and the city council adopted the program unanimously. Here is a link to the ordinance: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu /Redwood%20City.pdf. Here is a link to a short article on how parking meters with local revenue return have sparked a commercial revival in Old Pasadena: http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/smallchange.pdf. Copyright 2009 American Planning Association All Rights Reserved

Parking Spaces / Community Places Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Development, Community, and Environment Division (1807T) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 EPA 231-K-06-001 January 2006 Used with permission.

Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Beyond Generic Parking Requirements... 6 The Costs of Parking... 9 Innovative Parking Alternatives... 13 Reduce Oversupply... 13 Manage Demand... 22 Pricing Strategies... 29 Case Studies... 35 Innovative Parking Policies: Portland, Oregon... 36 Context-Specific Requirements and Travel Demand Management: Arlington County, Virginia... 42 Transportation Management for Mixed-Use Development: Santa Clara, California, NASA Research Park... 45 Reduced Parking Requirements: Wilton Manors, Florida, The Shoppes of Wilton Manors... 48 Transportation Demand Management Program: Redmond, Washington, SAFECO Insurance Company Expansion. 50 Shared Parking and In-Lieu Fees: Long Beach, California, Embassy Suites at D Orsay Promenade.. 52 References... 56

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Beyond Generic Parking Requirements I n calculating parking requirements, planners typically use generic standards that apply to individual land-use categories, such as residences, offices, and shopping. The most commonly used guidelines, issued by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in the Parking Generation Handbook (ITE, 2004), are based on observations of peak demand for parking at single-use developments in relatively low-density settings with little transit (Shoup, 2005). In such places, the destinations are widely separated, parking is typically free, and walking, biking, and transit are not available. As a result, planners assume in effect that every adult has a car, every employee drives to work, and every party visiting a restaurant arrives by car. Under these conditions, parking can take up more than 50 percent of the land used in a development (see figure). For more compact, mixed-use, walkable places, these standards end up calling for far more parking than is needed. Most planners surveyed relied on neighboring cities and national handbooks to determine parking requirements. This practice may result in inappropriate requirements if local conditions or policy approaches differ. Michael Kodama, Michael R. Kodama Planning Associates A surplus of parking really can be too much of a good thing. It creates a dead zone of empty parking lots in the middle of what ought to be a bustling commercial district or neighborhood. This dead zone means there is less room for the offices and homes that would supply a steady stream of office workers and residents who might patronize businesses in the area -- and less room to cluster other businesses that will attract more foot traffic. Requiring more parking than the market actually demands adds substantial costs to development and redevelopment, and in some cases the added costs will prevent development altogether. For example, the future site of the D Orsay Hotel in a prime location in Long Beach, California sat for years as a lowrevenue parking lot -- every developer who considered building on it was stopped in part by the high cost of building a garage to fulfill the city s minimum parking requirement. It is under development today as a hotel and retail complex in large part because innovative strategies reduced the parking burden on the developer. See page 52 for the full case study. Parking requirements are often copied from one jurisdiction to another, and so are remarkably consistent across different cities. Generic standards do not take into account the many highly local variables that influence parking, such as density, demographics, availability of public transit, potential for biking and walking, or the availability of other parking nearby. The obvious results of such rigid requirements are big empty parking lots -- and they can also result in empty buildings. Perfectly useable space in older buildings with limited or no on-site parking may prove unrentable, because the businesses that would like to locate there are unable to meet high minimum parking requirements. The buildings remain vacant, thwarting redevelopment plans (Shoup, 2005). Generic parking standards have simply not kept up the complexity of mod- 6

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions ern mixed-use development and redevelopment. But parking requirements can be altered to allow planners to better measure the true demand for parking and to balance parking with wider community goals. This approach entails careful consideration of land-use and transportation characteristics that relate to parking demand. Successful examples consider the following factors. Development type and size. Take into account the specific characteristics of the project: is there a large theatre that requires evening parking, or will small shops attract short-term, daytime patronage? Can the two share parking spaces? Parking demand is of course also influenced by the size of the development, which is typically measured by total building square footage. Development density and design. Consider the density of the development. Research shows that each time residential density doubles, auto ownership falls by 32 to 40 percent (Holtzclaw et al. 2002). Higher densities mean that destinations are closer together, and more places can be reached on foot and by bicycle reducing the need to own a car. Density is also closely associated with other factors that influence car ownership, such as the presence of good transit service, the community s ability to support stores located in neighborhoods, and even the walkability of neighborhood streets. Demographics. Consider the characteristics of the people using Site Coverage for Typical Commercial Development (averages for Olympia, Washington) Lawns/Landscaping 13% Sidewalks 4% Streets 3% Building Footprint 26% Parking 54% Source: City of Olympia Public Works Department, and the Washington State Department of Ecology, 1995. 7

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions In the process of establishing parking requirements, local communities are sometimes engaged in a balancing act. They must consider access, mobility, and traffic safety, but they also must encourage appropriate land use and traffic management, environmental protection, and energy and resource conservation. Thomas P. Smith Flexible Parking Requirements Planners Advisory Service Report 377 the development, including employees, customers, residents, and visitors. People of different incomes and ages tend to have different car ownership rates. Availability of transportation choices. Take into account the modes of transportation available to employees, visitors, and residents. Access to public transportation in a particular development, for example, can reduce parking demand. Walkable neighborhoods and bicycle amenities can also reduce parking demand. Surrounding land-use mix. Consider the neighboring land uses and density to better understand parking needs. For example, an office building parking lot will be empty when the restaurant next door is packed, so requiring both to provide for 100 percent of their parking needs simply wastes space. Off-site parking. Consider the parking that is already available nearby: on the street, on nearby properties, or in public garages that may be available for users of a new development. On-street parking can be considered to reduce the amount of on-site parking required for new development, or as a reserve should new uses require more parking than expected. On street parking has the added benefit of acting as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic, increasing the attractiveness of walking. Land use and demographic information are important tools for establishing context-specific parking requirements that better balance supply and demand for parking. 8

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions The Costs of Parking T his section describes the costs of providing parking, both in terms of financial and environmental health. While parking is necessary, providing too much of it can exert a high cost, so understandings its impact is important. That impact can vary considerably with the amount and type of parking provided, and the types of development being served. Financial Costs The financial cost of providing parking is driven by three key factors: the number of parking spaces required, the opportunity cost of the land used for parking, and the cost per parking space 1. Parking requirements that assume suburban levels of demand in urban locations may necessitate large surface lots or parking garages, unnecessarily increasing the cost of infill and other compact development. The opportunity cost is the cost of using a space for parking instead of for a use with higher value. This varies considerably depending on the development context. In infill locations, the opportunity cost can be quite high, as each on-site parking space can reduce the number of new housing units or other users by 25 percent or more (Transportation and Land Use Coalition, 2002). The cost per space depends on engineering and design considerations. Cost per parking space includes land, construction, maintenance, utilities, insurance, administrative, and operation costs (Tumlin and Siegman, 1993). The per-space costs tend to be higher in infill locations, providing a strong incentive for avoiding a parking surplus. Towns that are trying to encourage infill development or compact new suburbs can help spur those activities by accurately gauging parking demand. In general, the following factors affect the cost per space of parking: Structured versus surface parking. Parking garages are more costly to construct, operate, and maintain than surface parking lots, but can be desirable in urban locations seeking to create a more walkable environment. For example, Shoup (1998) reports construction costs of over $29,000 per space for a structured garage in Walnut Creek, California, against perhaps $2,000 per space to construct surface parking. Underground parking structures are more costly to construct than above-ground structures because of the added expense of excavation and required engineering. Ignoring both the cost of providing parking spaces and the price charged for parking in them, urban planners thus set minimum parking requirements to satisfy maximum parking demand. Donald Shoup Department of Urban Planning, UCLA 1 All costs are updated to 2004 dollars. Costs include various components as noted. Where amortized, they assume a 7.5% interest rate over a 30-year period, and annual operating costs. 9

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Land cost. Land costs vary widely across settings (urban/suburban), geographic areas, and location within a particular city. Land costs in urban centers are generally much higher than in suburban areas. For example, in 1997 the cost per square foot of land in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina, was $121, while suburban land cost $21 (ULI, 1997). Higher land costs make the efficient supply and use of parking critical to development and redevelopment in urban areas. Configuration and size of parking facility. Parking structures and lots are more expensive to build and operate on smaller lots and complex land configurations, due in part to economies of scale. For example, smaller garages have higher costs per parking space because of the fixed capital costs (e.g., stairwells, ramps, and elevators) and fixed operating costs. These characteristics smaller lots and more complex land configurations are typical of urban areas, making parking more expensive at these locations. Geologic conditions. Parking structures on land with more sensitive seismic conditions or land with difficult terrain also cost more per parking space because they require more complex engineering and construction design. While geologic conditions vary across the country, developers have a greater choice of sites when considering development in suburban and rural areas. Sites in urban areas are more limited, and terrain with geologic constraints may be more difficult to avoid. Land and construction costs, which account for most of the costs of parking, vary considerably across cities and parking designs. Construction costs alone also range widely due to building codes, materials, and labor costs, but per space construction costs for structures (aboveor below-grade) are typically much higher than for surface lots. Willson (1995) expresses parking costs in terms of a monthly amount that would pay for the land, construction, and operating costs of providing a parking space. The reported monthly cost calculated for six surface parking sites in Southern California ranged from $50 to $110 per space, with an average of $86. The average cost for two sites in Southern California with above ground structured parking was $175 per space per month. Litman (2004) analyzes costrecovery thresholds for parking under various scenarios, finding a range from $20 to nearly $200 per month to finance, build, operate, and maintain a parking space. With such wide variability, national averages, especially those including land costs, clearly do not have much meaning. This underlines the 10

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions importance of looking at costs for a specific area when assessing potential savings from reducing oversupply. Environmental Costs In addition to tangible financial costs, parking has external costs that affect the natural environment and the surrounding community, and these are typically not factored into development decisions. Parking lots and garages themselves have a direct impact on the environment, and they can affect the environment indirectly by cutting off transportation choices, encouraging driving that pollutes the environment. Direct environmental impacts include: degraded water quality, stormwater management problems, exacerbated heat island effects, and excessive land consumption. Construction of surface parking often paves ground that once absorbed and filtered rainwater. This increases stormwater runoff, which can result in more flooding. The oil and other pollutants washed off the parking lot exacerbate water pollution. Dark pavement can artificially raise air temperature, resulting in heat islands that raise air-conditioning bills. In undeveloped areas, forests, wetlands and other natural features should be considered part of a region s green infrastructure that process stormwater, clean the air, and provide wildlife habitat. Ensuring that parking areas are sized to a development s actual needs instead of to a generic requirement can preserve this infrastructure. Parking also indirectly affects the environment, primarily because parking influences how and where people choose to travel. In conventional low-density, single-use development, the required large surface parking lots create places that are not friendly to pedestrians or transit. These places also require more and longer trips between homes, workplaces, schools, shops, and parks. As a result, people make the rational choice to drive almost everywhere -- and these areas register more vehicle miles of travel per capita. Increases in travel rates are associated with increased emissions of pollutants, including carbon monoxide and the pollutants that contribute to dangerous ground-level ozone. Air pollution is associated with asthma and many other health problems, driving up health-care costs. Compact development that mix uses can reduce the need for surface parking, preserving green infrastructure while also reducing the amount of driving necessary for community residents. By creating an environment that supports the efficient use of parking, such development can also lead to better balance between parking needs and other community goals. For further discussion of the environmental impact of development patterns, see Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation and Environmental Quality (EPA, 2001a). 11

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Innovative Parking Alternatives As local governments respond to public demand for better development patterns, many have created alternatives to inflexible minimum parking requirements. The alternatives are aimed at avoiding an oversupply of parking, minimizing parking demand, or using the power of the marketplace to regulate parking. In areas of existing development, avoiding oversupply encourages better use of existing parking facilities and better evaluation of parking needs. Other policies give people an alternative to driving, and so reduce the demand for parking. And market-based pricing systems can help better match demand and supply, ensuring expensive parking spaces are used efficiently. Some of these strategies have lowered total development costs, further encouraging compact, mixed-use development patterns that moderate parking demand. This section presents a selection of policies that make parking requirements more flexible. It includes a discussion of how and why these alternatives were developed, their advantages and limitations, and real-world examples. Each application has its own unique characteristics, and this diversity makes it impossible to isolate the costs and benefits of specific policies. The discussion presented here is not intended to portray any specific policy as universally applicable. Rather, community context should always be considered when balancing parking with other goals. Reduce Oversupply As discussed earlier, in communities working to create mixed-use, compact, walkable places, inflexible application of conventional minimum parking requirements tends to create an oversupply of parking. This creates unnecessary environmental impacts and fi- Parking Alternative Context-Specific Requirements Centralized Parking, In-Lieu Fees Shared Parking Other Supply Strategies Land Banking and Landscape Reserves Car-Sharing Subsidies for Transit Transit Improvements Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Transportation Demand Management Programs Pricing Strategies Strategies That Work Example Location Montgomery County, Maryland Milwaukee, Wisconsin Los Angeles, California Eugene, Oregon Seattle, Washington Boston, Massachusetts Miami, Florida Chattanooga, Tennessee West Palm Beach, Florida Long Beach, California Indianapolis, Indiana Portland, Oregon Redmond, Washington Iowa City, Iowa Portland, Oregon Palo Alto, California Carmel, California Cleveland, Ohio Iowa City, Iowa Boston, Massachusetts Washington, DC San Francisco, California Seattle, Washington Boulder, Colorado Boulder, Colorado Santa Clara County, California San Bernardino County, California Montgomery County, Maryland Portland, Oregon Chattanooga, Tennessee Schaumburg, Illinois Kendall, Florida Cambridge, Massachusetts Seattle, Washington Montgomery County, Maryland Los Angeles, California Santa Monica, California San Diego, California Pasadena, California 13

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions nancial costs. The strategies discussed below can reduce the supply of parking while still effectively meeting demand. Context-Specific Standards Setting parking standards to fit the particular context of a neighborhood or development is a challenge planners are just beginning to tackle. As discussed earlier, parking requirements are often applied for each land use city wide, and so lack the flexibility needed to address different parking needs. A major challenge for city planners is how to make codes more flexible and sensitive to specific local conditions, but still provide the predictability desired by developers. Codifying reductions in parking requirements provides the greatest certainty for governments, citizens and neighbors, and developers, and enables all to plan for balancing parking with other development goals. When the reductions in parking requirements are clearly stated in the codes, developments are less likely to be held up in the permitting process or challenged by local residents. Planners need to develop an understanding of local parking markets, combine this with experience from other settings, and then create local parking requirements. Some of the mechanisms being used are: Location- and Use-Specific Requirements Milwaukee, Wisconsin Milwaukee has some of the lowest city wide parking ratios anywhere in the country. Parking ratios for retail are two spaces per 1,000 square feet, compared to the Institute of Transportation Engineers standard of one to 300 square feet. For business uses, Milwaukee requires eight spaces for the first 2,000 square feet, and one for each subsequent 1,000 square feet. In the downtown zone, there are no minimum parking requirements for any land use except high-density housing, where the ratio is a very low two spaces per three units. The city generally discourages surface lots within the downtown and dictates that at least 50 percent of the ground floor of parking structures be used for retail. These policies were enacted in 1986 and strengthened in October 2002 with new credits for transit-oriented development, on-street parking, and shared parking. Developments within a defined geographical area near transit (which encompasses over half of the city area) are granted reductions of up to 15 percent in the minimum requirements. Further reductions are allowed for on-street spaces adjacent to the property (up to a 1:1 space credit), and for shared parking (up to 0.75 space credit for each shared space). One to one credits are also allowed for leased parking spaces in existing lots within 750 feet of the site. Source: Milwaukee Department of City Development, 2002. Transit zoning overlays. In areas with frequent transit service, especially those served by rail stations, fewer residents, workers, and shoppers require parking. In addition, the density and mix of uses possible around rail stations can sometimes support market-rate parking, which leads to more efficient use. Many cities find they can reduce minimum parking requirements for certain uses that are within a specified distance of a rail station or frequent bus route. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland reduces parking requirements by as much as 20 percent, depending on distance from a Metrorail station. Parking are only one aspect of transit zoning overlays, which often address issues such as density, design, and allowable uses. Codes may encourage shared parking in transit zones, which accommodates more cars than parking reserved solely for residents and commuters. New zoning districts or 14

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions specific plans. In compact, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods and town centers parking requirements can frequently be lower than typical minimum requirements. Some communities have adopted designated zoning districts or neighborhood specific plans to accomplish this. Most commonly, this applies to the downtown; Milwaukee finds that parking and other goals can be met with lower parking requirements than in outlying locations. Some areas waive the minimums altogether, letting the development market decide where and how to build parking. The same techniques can be applied to neighborhoods outside of downtowns that offer frequent transit, such as Seattle s Pike/ Pine district. Specific plans, which detail development requirements at the parcel level, are particularly useful to encourage infill development in older neighborhoods or on brownfield sites. Location- and Use-Specific Requirements Seattle, Washington Seattle s zoning code grants reductions in minimum parking requirements based on several factors, including: Affordable housing. Minimum parking requirements are reduced to between 0.5 and 1.0 space per unit, depending on income, location, and size of unit. Senior housing and housing for people with disabilities. Car-sharing. Only for multi-family developments that allow dedicated onsite parking for the city s recognized car-sharing operator. Location. No parking minimums are set for downtown and they are reduced in mixed-use, dense neighborhoods.\ Source: Seattle Department of Transportation, 2001. Parking freezes. The amount of parking required can be directly reduced through parking freezes that cap the total number of parking spaces in a particular metropolitan district.. Cities with successful parking freezes generally have strong economies and well developed transit systems, and are attractive to tenants, customers, and visitors. Such cities can attract businesses because the benefits of the urban location outweigh the potential drawback of limited parking, and because public transit offers a viable alternative to automobile use. Downtown Boston has had a parking freeze in effect for many years in an effort to control driving and the associated emissions. Downtown San Francisco has applied a cap on commuter parking, as their downtown street network functions at capacity during rush hours, and transit and other travel options are numerous. Jurisdictions using the restrictions generally view each new parking space (commuter spaces in particular) as the generator of one more rush-hour vehicle trip, and want to limit those trips to reduce air pollution and congestion. Reductions for affordable and senior housing. Successful regions frequently struggle to provide affordable housing, as desirability and supply drive up housing prices. In many of these places, providing housing to lower-income workers and senior citizens can become an important goal. Since people with lower incomes and older people tend to own fewer vehicles parking requirements can 15

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions be reduced for below-market-rate units and senior housing. This reduces the overall cost of providing such housing, and may increase the number of units that can be provided. Los Angeles grants a reduction of 0.5 spaces per unit for deed-restricted affordable housing units, with further reductions if they are within 1,500 feet of mass transit or a major bus line. Case-by-case evaluation. Where area-wide or systematic code changes are not possible, reductions in parking requirements can be granted on a case-by-case basis, often on the condition that mitigation measures such as car-sharing (see page 23) are provided. Cities such as Eugene, Oregon specify in their zoning codes that such reductions will be granted subject to a parking study showing that the proposed provision will be adequate to meet demand. Abolish requirements. Another approach is for cities to simply abolish all parking requirements in neighborhoods that are served by a range of travel options and where surrounding residential areas are protected from spillover parking from other users (Millard-Ball, 2002). This leaves it up to developers who have a financial interest in meeting tenants needs while not oversupplying parking to determine how many spaces are needed. The generous parking capacity required by planners often goes unused. Studying office buildings in ten California cities, Richard Willson (1995) found that the peak parking demand averaged only 56 percent of capacity. Donald Shoup, UCLA Maximum Limits and Transferable Parking Entitlements Maximum limits turn conventional parking requirements upside down by restricting the total number of spaces that can be constructed. Planners set maximum limits much as they set minimum requirements. Typically, a maximum number of spaces is based on the square footage of a specific land use. For example, Portland, Oregon, allows buildings in the central business district a maximum of 0.7 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, and 1.0 space per 1,000 square feet of net building area for retail. Communities can make maximum parking requirements more flexible by introducing transferable parking entitlements, as in Portland Oregon. The allowed number of parking spaces for a particular development are an entitlement that can be transferred or sold to another development if they are unused. This policy enables cities to control the parking supply, without restricting developments that would not be feasible without additional parking. Projects that require more parking can proceed, while those that need less parking can benefit by selling their rights, or negotiating shared parking agreements for their employees or customers. Portland s planners are using parking maximums in an attempt to improve mobility, promote the use of alternative modes, support existing and new economic development, maintain air quality, and enhance the urban form of the Central City (City of Portland, 1999). By combining maximums with transferable parking entitlements, Portland s downtown provides ample 16

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions parking for retail and other priority uses, along with market-rate commuter parking, in a compact, walkable area with a mix of uses and transportation choices. Both planners and developers benefit from restricting the number of parking spaces allowed. From the city s perspective, maximum limits: Improve the urban environment by preserving open space and limiting impervious surfaces; Reduce congestion; Encourage attractive, pedestrian-friendly urban design; and Promote transportation choices. From the developer s perspective, maximum limits: Minimize costs for parking construction, operations, and maintenance; Reduce traffic and traffic-related costs; and Allow development at a greater floor-to-area ratio, increasing leasable space. There are challenges to setting and maintaining maximum limits. Planners must consider possible spillover parking in surrounding residential neighborhoods if parking in those areas is free.. To avoid such spillover, developers must understand the factors that affect parking demand and ensure that viable transportation choices exist. A common policy for preventing parking spillover into residential areas is to implement residential parking permit programs, but these have drawbacks (see discussion of parking benefit districts on page 33). Changes in frequency or routing of transit, increases or decreases in development densities, or changes in land use can all influence the demand for parking in the neighborhood. Linking Maximum Limits and Transit Improvements Portland, Oregon In Portland, Oregon, maximum parking limits vary according to distance from light rail stations. For example, new office space on the light rail transit mall is allowed 0.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet, while office space in Goose Hollow, located several blocks from the transit mall, is allowed 2.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. These maximum limits have not been problematic to developers. In fact, property values and customer volume in the parking-restricted areas near transit stations are higher than in other areas. In a 1987 survey of 54 businesses located near light rail transit, 66 percent of business owners said that their businesses had been helped because they were located near public transit; 54 percent reported increased sales volumes as a result of being located near transit, in spite of reduced parking supply. Source: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, 1999. With restrictive maximum limits on the number of parking spaces, developers may worry about the long-term marketability of a property. Marketability should not be a concern for competing developments in the same locale if all developments must adhere to the maximum limits. Parking restrictions that may seem to place urban areas at a disadvantage can be offset by amenities other than parking, such as convenient access to services and places of employment, attractive streetscapes, or pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. City governments and developers should 17

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions incorporate these elements to attract businesses and residents. Maximum requirements are not ideal for all locations. Municipalities that employ maximum requirements must have accompanying accessible and frequent public transportation. It is also important for the area to be sufficiently stable economically to attract tenants without needing to provide a surplus of parking. A number of cities have implemented maximum parking requirements, including San Francisco and Seattle. Shared Parking Circle Centre Indianapolis, Indiana Opened in September 1995, Circle Centre in Indianapolis central business district offers retail and entertainment destinations. This development contains 630,600 square feet of retail space and100,000 square feet of restaurant, speciality, and entertainment space, as well as a 2,700-seat cinema. One of the factors that led to the financial success of this $300 million project was a shared parking arrangement that saved money and allowed a pedestrian-friendly design. Under generic minimum parking requirements, Circle Centre would have needed about 6,000 parking spaces. By using shared parking, the project was built with just 2,815 spaces. Shared parking for Circle Centre is used for both customers and employees. The mixed-use nature of the development project allows customers to use a single parking space for multiple destinations within the complex. Employees can use nearby off-site parking, particularly in evenings and on weekends when more than 12,000 nearby off-site spaces that normally serve downtown office workers become available. Taking these two shared parking components into account decreases the estimated need for on-site parking by more than 50 percent. This reduction in parking demand translates into considerable cost savings. At parking costs of about $10,000 per space for aboveground structured parking, development costs were reduced by about $30 million.. In addition, operating costs were reduced by approximately $1 million per year. Source: Smith, 1996. Shared Parking The concept of shared parking is based on the simple idea that different destinations attract customers, workers, and visitors during different times of day. An office that has peak parking demand during the daytime, for example, can share the same pool of parking spaces with a restaurant whose demand peaks in the evening. The first shared parking programs arose when developers, interested in reducing development costs, successfully argued that they could accommodate all demand on site with a reduced number of spaces. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) report Shared Parking (2005) presented analytic methods for local governments and developers to use on specific projects, and as mixed-use projects continue to grow in number and sophistication, ULI continues to update this methodology. By allowing for and encouraging shared parking, planners can decrease the total number of spaces required for mixed-use developments or single-use developments in mixed-use areas. Developers benefit, not only from the decreased cost of development, but also from the captive markets stemming from mixed-use development. For example, office employees are a captive market for business lunches at restaurants in mixeduse developments. Shared parking also allows for more efficient use of land and better urban design, including walkability and traffic flow. Shared parking encourages use of centralized parking lots or garages and discourages the development of many scattered small facilities. A sidewalk with fewer driveway interruptions and more shop fronts is more comfortable and interesting for pedestrians and will encourage walking. Reducing driveways also results in more efficient traffic flow because there are fewer turning opportunities on main thoroughfares. This has the added benefits of reducing accidents and reducing emissions from idling vehicles stuck in traffic. Establishing shared parking requirements involves 18

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions site-specific assessment or use of time-of-day parking utilization curves, which were developed by the ULI in Shared Parking. Planners need to consider several factors when developing shared parking requirements, including the physical layout of the development; the number of spaces for each of the individual land uses; the types of parking users (e.g., employees, residents, or hotel guests who park all day, or customers and visitors who park for short periods of time); and hourly accumulation of parking for each land use. Calculating Parking for Mixed-Use Developments (Mont gomery Count y, Maryland) Weekday Weekend Nighttime Daytime (9 a.m. - 4 p.m.) Evening (6 p.m. - 12 a.m.) Dayt ime (9 a.m. - 4 p.m.) Evening (6 p.m. - 12 a.m.) (12 a.m. - 6 a.m.) Office 300* 30 30 15 15 Ret ail 168 252 280* 196 14 Ent ert ainment 40 100* 80 100* 10 TOTAL 508 382 390 311 39 * Peak demand by use. Source: Sm it h 1983, page 7. Montgomery County, Maryland, allows for shared parking to meet minimum parking requirements when any land or building under the same ownership or under a joint-use agreement is used for two or more purposes. The county s ordinance also allows parking reductions based on proximity to transit, participation in TDM programs, or location in the central business district. The county uses the following method to determine shared requirements for mixed-use developments: Determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as though it were a separate use, by time period; Calculate the total parking required across uses for each time period; then Set the requirement at the maximum total across time periods. The table above illustrates how peak demand occurs at different times of the day and week for different land uses. While maximum parking demand for the office component of the project occurs during the daytime on weekdays, maximum demand for retail occurs during the daytime on weekends, and peak entertainment demand is in the evening. For this example, setting parking requirements using maximum demand would have resulted in requiring 680 spaces (300 spaces for office, 280 spaces for retail, and 100 spaces for entertainment). By recognizing the shared parking potential, the developer cut almost 200 unnecessary parking spaces (about 25 percent), represent- 19

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Centralized Parking Chattanooga, Tennessee To encourage urban development in downtown Chattanooga while limiting congestion and air pollution, the Chattanooga Area Regional Transit Authority (CARTA) developed a strategy to provide peripheral parking and a free shuttle service. The system is designed for the city s linear central business district and allows workers and visitors to drive to the city, park in one of the two peripheral garages, and use the shuttles to travel up and down the 15-block business corridor. By constructing parking at either end of the business district, CARTA intercepts commuters and visitors before they drive into and through the city center, reducing traffic congestion. The two parking garages Shuttle Park South (550 spaces) and Shuttle Park North (650 spaces), are owned by CARTA and operated privately. The free shuttle buses are financed through the garages parking revenues. They depart from each garage every five minutes all day, every day, and pass within walking distance of most downtown destinations. The electric-powered shuttles transport approximately one million riders each year, making shuttle-served property attractive to businesses. Since 1992, when the shuttle service began, over $400 million has been spent on development in Chattanooga, including the successful aquarium, over 100 retail shops and over 60 restaurants. CARTA s initiatives won commendation from EPA, receiving a Way to Go award in 1996 for innovative transportation solutions that support urban development. Sources: EPA, 1998; Chattanooga News Bureau, 1999. ing a considerable cost savings. An American Planning Association report, Flexible Parking Requirements, highlights factors that facilitate shared parking (Smith, 1983). The report suggests that for shared parking to function effectively, parking requirements for individual land uses must reflect peak-demand land use and common parking facilities must be near one another. Parking spaces should not be reserved for individuals or groups. Centralized Parking Facilities and Management A subset of shared parking is the construction of centralized parking lots and garages. Some cities mandate centralized parking facilities and finance them through development impact fees, in lieu parking fees, or negotiated contributions established during the environmental review process. Centralized parking can be built and operated by a public entity or public/private partnership and reduce the costs of parking because large facilities are less expensive on a per space basis to build and maintain than small facilities. The example in the next chapter of Wilton Manors, Florida, is such a case. Centralized parking facilities can meet urban design goals if they allow the elimination of small surface parking lots and driveways that interrupt the walkable fabric of mixed-use areas. Centralized parking enables travelers to park once to visit several destinations, potentially reducing on-street congestion from short trips within an area. Developers are sometimes concerned that centralized parking will be inconvenient for building occupants, but these concerns can be addressed in part by building several centralized facilities throughout a business district or mixed-use area. Centralized management can still ensure coordinated policies for their use, maintaining many of the advantages of centralized parking. In other cases, the operator can provide shuttle services to and from centralized garages. Many downtown areas have successfully instituted centralized parking. Some cities, such as Pittsburgh and Chattanooga (see box) operate such facilities at the periphery of the downtown, reducing traffic and mobile source emissions in the core and freeing up land in the center city for other development. In-Lieu Parking Fees In-lieu parking fees are one way to finance such centralized public garages and give developers flexibility in providing parking on-site. Developers 20

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions are able to avoid constructing parking on site by paying the city a fee, and the city in return provides off-site parking that is available for use by the development s tenants and visitors. The city determines the fees, generally based on the cost of providing parking. Cities set fees in one of two ways, either by calculating a flat fee for parking spaces not provided by a developer on site, or by establishing development-specific fees on a case-by-case basis. Shoup (2005) reports that in-lieu fees in the United States range from $2,000 to $20,000 per parking space and may or may not reflect the true costs of providing parking. These fees can be imposed as a property tax surcharge or at the time of development permitting. In-lieu parking fees provide a mechanism for providing parking in balance with other community goals, satisfying the public as well as planners and developers. Using in-lieu fees and centralized garages can: Reduce overall construction costs; Avoid construction of awkward, unattractive onsite parking that could compromise historic buildings; Increase public access to convenient parking; Ensure that parking facilities will be used more efficiently; and Encourage better urban design with streetscapes uninterrupted by parking lots and driveways. In establishing in-lieu parking fees, planners must be aware of potential developers concerns that the lack of on-site parking will make developments less attractive to tenants and visitors. This can be an issue if available public parking is insufficient, inconveniently located, or inefficiently operated. Planners must carefully consider the parking demand for each participating property and provide enough parking to meet this demand in order to avoid creating a perceived or real parking shortage. Planners must also work to ensure that public parking facilities are located and operated in ways that support development. In-Lieu Parking Fees Coconut Grove Miami, Florida Coconut Grove is a pedestrian-oriented, entertainment, dining, and shopping village in southern Miami. To maintain Coconut Grove s continuous street frontage and keep it attractive to pedestrians, city planners established flexible parking requirements. Developers or property owners have three choices for satisfying minimum parking requirements: they can provide off-street parking, contract spaces elsewhere, or pay inlieu fees. With little space left to develop and high land costs, most property owners choose to pay the $50 per space per month fee to the city and use the land for more productive, revenue-generating purposes. The city uses the in-lieu fees to provide shared, structured parking, improve transit service, and maintain the sidewalks and pedestrian amenities. By investing the in-lieu fees in a combination of parking and other improvements, the city helps to keep Coconut Grove walkable and maintain the attractive aesthetic character of the area. Source: Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce. Accounting for Uncertainty Estimating parking demand is not an exact science, and a few communities are setting aside land through land banking and landscape reserves that can be converted into parking if shortages arise. Landscaping can often be used to turn this set-aside land into an attractive amenity for the development 21

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Land Banking Iowa City, Iowa, and Palo Alto, California Both Iowa City and Palo Alto have enacted land-banking policies in their parking codes. In some neighborhood commercial zones in Iowa City, minimum parking requirements may be waived or relaxed, and land banking used in place of up to 30 percent of the otherwise required parking. If an enforcement official determines in the future that the additional parking spaces are needed, the property owner can be required to construct parking on the land banked area. Palo Alto s code authorizes the city to defer up to 50 percent of the required spaces as a landscape reserve where the expected need for off-street parking for a particular development is uncertain. The California Park Apartments development, for example, was allowed to defer 22 of the 95 parking spaces required by city code, using the land instead for a family play lot, a barbeque area, and picnic benches. Nearly 15 years after construction, the landscape reserve has not been needed for parking, and the community enjoys the environmental and social benefits of the recreation area. Source: Iowa City and Palo Alto Zoning and Parking Codes. or wider community, but requiring new development to purchase additional land as insurance against uncertain parking demand imposes additional costs, which may work against community redevelopment goals. Land banking and landscape reserves are particularly useful policies when the expected need for off-street parking for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics, or if parking. no data is available to establish need. Cities could respond by requiring the construction of parking spaces that may well sit empty. But these techniques allow supply to be determined by the best estimates, with the security that more parking can be constructed if needed. In some cases, landscape reserves can be required in conjunction with parking reductions granted in return for company plans to reduce private vehicle trips, known as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plans. If the employer falls out of compliance with the TDM plan, they can be required to go to the expense of constructing additional parking. Land banking and landscape reserve policies have been implemented in cities throughout Oregon (including Portland), as well as Palo Alto, California; Carmel, California; Cleveland; and Iowa City, Iowa. Palo Alto allows reductions of up to 50 percent in minimum parking requirements, provided that the difference is made up through a landscape reserve. None of the city s landscaped reserves have subsequently been required for To avoid confusion with terminology, it should be noted that land banking can also refer to the purchase of land by a local government or developer for use or resale at a later date. Banked land is sometimes used as interim parking to generate revenue generation parking fees from temporary lots are put towards construction of later phases of the development, and at some point built over into buildings or structured parking. Manage Demand While reducing excess parking supply is important in eliminating the waste of unused parking spaces, some communities are looking to directly reduce the demand for parking, by providing people with readily available alternatives to driving. Demand reduction programs include car sharing, subsidies for transit, transit improvements, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and comprehensive vehicle trip reduction programs that may include telecommuting and/or flexible work schedules to reduce commuting. While these programs are typically developed by local governments, their success often depends 22

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions on the commitment of businesses to implement them effectively. Car-Sharing Car-sharing is a neighborhood-based, short-term vehicle rental service that makes cars easily available to residents on a pay-per-use basis. Members have access to a common fleet of vehicles, parked throughout neighborhoods so they are within easy walking distance, or at transit stations. In programs with the most advanced technology, members simply reserve the nearest car via telephone or the Internet, walk to its reserved space, open the door using an electronic card, and drive off. They are billed at the end of the month, gaining most of the benefits of a private car without the costs and responsibilities of ownership, and without having to search for parking when their trip is over. In urban neighborhoods with good transit access, car-sharing can eliminate the need to own a vehicle, particularly a second or third car that is driven less than 10,000 miles per year. In San Francisco, nearly 60 percent of households that owned vehicles before joining the car-sharing program have given up at least one of them within a year, and another 13 percent were considering it (Nelson\Nygaard, 2002). Zipcar, which operates in Boston, New York, and Washington, DC, reports that 15 percent of members sell their private car. In Europe, which has a far longer experience with car-sharing, each shared vehicle takes between four and ten private cars off the road -- and out of city parking spaces (City of Bremen, 2002). In some cities, developers have been allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces if they incorporate car-sharing. Developers may need to contribute towards set-up costs and/or provide parking spaces reserved for car-sharing vehicles as part of a project. Car-sharing can be provided as part of a mitigation agreement with the local jurisdiction in return for a reduction in minimum Car-Sharing, Pricing Strategies Van Ness and Turk Development -- San Francisco, California This development includes 141 residential units in a dense area of San Francisco, with only 51 parking spaces. The development was granted a substantial reduction in parking requirements nearly two-thirds from the city s minimum of 1 space per unit, to 1 space per 2.8 units. The reduction was granted in large part because of the developers agreement to provide two parking spaces for car-sharing operator City CarShare, accessible to residents and all CarShare members. Strong community and organizational support, as well as proximity to major transit corridors, were also factors. If the developers had been required to build the additional 90 spaces required by code, they would have been forced to add either subterranean levels or parking lifts, which save space by stacking vehicles on top of each other. These expensive options would have cost between $1.35 million for lift technology (estimated at $15,000 per space) or $8.1 million for additional below-grade parking levels (estimated at $60,000 to $90,000 per space). The developer also unbundled, parking costs, so that residents are charged for parking separately from rent. The current market rate for parking is $280 to $300 per space per month. By charging separately for parking and incurring lower construction costs, the developer is able to keep apartment rents lower. Source: Thieophilos Developers, 2002. parking requirements. Alternatively, the parking reduction can be codified through zoning ordinances, as is being considered in Portland, Oregon, San Francisco, and Seattle. 23

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Car-sharing can also be a useful tool to reduce parking demand in commercial developments. Employees can use a shared vehicle for meetings and errands during the workday, allowing them to take transit, carpool, walk, or bicycle to work. Car-sharing works best in compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, where firms with corporate memberships tend to use the vehicles during the day and residents can use them in the evenings and on weekends. Formal car-sharing programs have been established in many cities, including Boston; Washington, DC; San Francisco; Oakland, California; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Boulder, Colorado, and are being established in many others. Some programs are run by non-profits with significant government support. Private for-profit companies, notably Flexcar and Zipcar, are operating in a number of cities, but they often work with the city or the local transit agency to secure reserved parking spaces on city streets or in transit parkand-ride lots. Alternatively, developers can provide shared vehicles themselves, or facilitate informal car-sharing among residents. Car-sharing reduces parking demand, but it also brings a broad range of other benefits, including fewer vehicle trips with less associated pollution, and improved mobility for low-income households who may not be able to afford to own a car, if rental rates are low enough.. Incentives for Transit Financial incentives to ride transit can help reduce parking demand. They can be provided by employers, by cities, or by residential property managers. Car-Sharing, Parking Maximums Rich Sorro Commons -- San Francisco, California Plans for Mission Bay, a 303-acre brownfield redevelopment area in San Francisco, include 6,000 units of housing, office space, university facilities, a hotel, community services, and retail. The city introduced parking maximums in this area to maximize the amount of new housing, make the most of the new Third Street Light Rail line through the neighborhood, and minimize traffic impacts on congested streets and the nearby freeway. Residential parking maximums were set at one space per unit. One of the first projects completed was Rich Sorro Commons, a mixed-use project with 100 affordable units and approximately 10,000 square feet of ground floor retail. It was constructed with only 85 parking spaces, due to: Excellent proximity to light rail, commuter rail, and frequent bus service; Provision of two parking spaces for City CarShare; and Units below market rate, with tenants who are less likely to own a car. With fewer parking spaces, Rich Sorro Commons was able to make space available for a childcare center and retail stores at ground level. The 17 would-be parking spaces were converted to retail space that is expected to generate revenues of $132,000 annually for the project (300 square feet per space at $25.80 per square foot in rent), making housing more affordable. The two City CarShare vehicles are available to residents, giving them access to a car without the costs of ownership a particularly important benefit for low-income households. Source: Kenneth Jones, Developer, 2002. 24

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions In the case of employer-paid transit pass plans, the employer pays the cost of employees transit, often instead of providing a free parking space. This fringe benefit for employees reduces the demand for parking at the workplace, which in turn reduces traffic, air pollution, and energy consumption. It can equalize the transportation benefit that traditionally only went to employees who drove to work and received a free parking space. It also reduces costs, as transit benefits are generally less expensive to employers than providing parking. A transit pass in Los Angeles, for example, costs $42 per month, whereas the average cost for a parking space is $91 per month (Shoup, 1997b). To promote transit subsidies, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century changed federal law so that transit benefits are not counted as payroll or as income (see also the description of cash-out programs on page 31). In some cases, city planners respond to employer-paid transit benefits by lowering minimum parking requirements. For example Montgomery County, Maryland s office zoning requirements allows a 15 percent reduction in minimum parking requirements if businesses offer reimbursed transit passes (Smith, 1983). The reduction in required parking can make urban development opportunities more inviting. Transit incentives can also be useful for residential developments, or even for neighborhoods.. Property managers in Boulder, Colorado, and Santa Clara County, California, for example, can bulk-purchase transit passes for all their Courtesy of City Car Share 25

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions residents at deeply discounted rates. The principle is similar to that of insurance transit agencies can offer lower rates on passes because not all residents will actually use them regularly. Residents can take transit for free, meaning they are less likely to own a vehicle. Another benefit of prepaid transit programs is that they encourage residents to take transit spontaneously, since costs are paid up-front. A person does not have to commit to transit full-time in order to be able Using Parking Revenue to Support Transit Boulder, Colorado Faced with a shortage of parking for customers, Boulder developed a program to encourage downtown employees to commute by other means. In 1993, Boulder s City Council mandated restricted downtown parking and appealed for parking demand management for the city s commuters. The Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID), made up of many of downtown s 700 businesses, responded to the Boulder City Council s demands by creating a system using revenue from downtown parking meters to pay for free bus passes. The passes are provided for all of the district s 7,500 employees, and cost $500,000 each year The program has changed travel behavior, freeing up valuable customer parking spaces: Employee carpooling increased from 35 percent in 1993 to 47 percent in 1997. The district s employees require 850 fewer parking spaces. The increase in available parking has encouraged more retail customers to shop in downtown Boulder. to reduce their demand for vehicle travel and parking. Developers who agree to fund transit passes can thus be rewarded with lower parking requirements. Transit Improvements One of the best ways to reduce the demand for parking is to improve transit service so that it is frequent, convenient, and easy to use. Local government officials can improve public transit through major projects, such as adding light rail lines or streetcars, or creating systems that give buses priority at lights and intersections. They can also lengthen transit service hours, increase the frequency of bus and train service, and revitalize transit stations. Small improvements can also help, such as convenient SmartCard payment systems, improved bus stops and shelters, and real-time directional and schedule information systems. Portland, Oregon s MAX light rail system exemplifies the widespread benefits of transit improvements. The light rail system encourages transit-oriented development, decreases automobile commuting, and eases demand for parking. In fact, the light rail improvements eliminated the need for six downtown parking towers (EPA, 1998). These improvements are also partially responsible for $1.3 billion in new development in Portland over the last 10 years. Boulder has created a special website with information about parking issues in the region: http://boulderparking.com. The City of Boulder offers deeply discounted Eco-Passes to businesses outside the CAGID and to residents, and encourages walking and bicyccling. These programs mean Boulder employees avoid 212,500 single-occupancy vehicle trips per year, saving an estimated two million miles of pollution- and congestion-causing automobile trips. use is prevented each year. Source : Boulder Community Network, 1999. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Demand for parking can be reduced by providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and amenities that make it easier and more pleasant for people to walk or bicycle to work, on errands, or to lunch. These changes can alleviate traffic congestion; for example, the automobile-dependent design of Tyson s Corner, Virginia, has resulted in high volumes of traffic at lunch time because 26

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions people cannot walk to restaurants or to run errands. Promoting bicycling and walking can be accomplished through both comprehensive policies and simple changes to the street.. Some jurisdictions have adopted complete streets policies that require every road construction or improvement project to provide safe access for everyone using the road, including transit users, bicyclists, and pedestrians (see www.completestreets.org). Other communities have focused on closing gaps in the sidewalk or bikeway network, by adding sections of sidewalks, bike lanes, or multi-use paths where needed to ensure safe travel by those modes. In addition to paying attention to the street, bicycling and walking can be encouraged through design changes that make walking and bicycling more secure and pleasant. The Downtown Master Plan for Kendall, Florida (Miami-Dade County), discusses several design concepts to improve pedestrian and bicycle access. Some of the key elements promoted, but not required, by this program are listed in the text box to the right. Developers can also encourage bicycling and walking by providing on-site facilities such as bicycle racks and even lockers and showers. For example, officials in Schaumburg, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, have incorporated provisions into their zoning ordinance to encourage bicycle use. The ordinance requires all retail centers to have a minimum of 10 bicycle spaces located at each main building entrance. To increase awareness, the ordinance requires that bike racks be highly visible; to protect bicyclists, the ordinance requires bicycle parking areas to be separated from automobile parking. Other jurisdictions require covered, secure bicycle parking for employees who will be leaving their bicycles all day. Designing for Pedestrians Kendall, Florida Close attention to design can dramatically improve the environment for pedestrians. The city of Kendall, Florida, has started to redevelop a conventional mall near a rail station into a new town center. The Downtown Master Plan specifies a number of improvements to create a compact, walkable place with good connections to existing neighborhoods: Bicycle/pedestrian access via new sidewalks and pathways. Trees and shrubs along edges facing streets and sidewalks. Parking hidden in the rear or in parking garages. Shade and rain protection for pedestrians, such as colonnades, arcades, marquees, second-floor balconies, wide awnings, or tree canopies. Buildings positioned along the sidewalks at a deliberate alignment, giving a designed shape to the public space. Doors and windows spaced at close intervals to generate activity, direct views to merchandise, and make walking interesting. Minimal number of driveways and parking lot entries that can making walking unsafe and erode urban space. Source: Downtown Master Plan, Kendall, Florida, 1998. Travel Demand Management (TDM) Programs Travel demand management (TDM) programs combine several trip-reduction strategies to meet explicit travel goals. Some TDM programs are put into place by a single employer; others are managed by governments or business improvement districts and focus on a developed area that may include both businesses and homes. These programs typically attempt to decrease the number of trips by singleoccupant vehicles, sometimes setting goals such as reduced vehicle trips or reduced miles traveled, while increasing the use of a variety of commuting and travel alternatives, including transit, carpooling, walking, and bicycling. TDM plans can be used by city planners to allow developers to build fewer parking spaces. 27

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions TDM programs may encourage transit incentives, parking cash-out, and other strategies mentioned here. In addition, these programs typically incorporate an assortment of complementary program elements that make it easier for people to give up solo driving. Examples include: Shared Parking, Transit Improvements, TDM Program Lindbergh City Center -- Atlanta, Georgia Guaranteed ride home services that allow employees who use public transit to get a free ride home (usually via taxi) if they miss their bus or if they need to stay at work late. The Lindbergh City Center is a mixed-use, high-density development in Atlanta on property owned by the transit agency, MARTA. The project was envisioned with a goal of having transit carry 30 percent of all trips to and from the center. The development, which includes a hotel and restaurant as well as office, retail, and residential space, centers on a MARTA light rail station that connects it to downtown Atlanta, the airport, and other areas. Parking reductions were allowed because of shared parking between office and retail uses, because of the ample transit access, and as a result of the Transportation Demand Management programs. Parking requirements for the first phase of the development were reduced by 20 percent overall; for office space the reduction is as high as 70 percent. Condominiums are allowed an 8 percent reduction, from 2 to 1.85 spaces per unit. Source: Paul Vespermann, Lindbergh City Center, 2002. with neighbors. Company fleet cars that can be used for business meetings or running errands during the workday Preferential and/or reserved parking for vanpools/carpools. Carpooling and/or vanpooling with ridematching service. Ride matching through informal ride boards or an employee transportation coordinator, helps people find and form carpools Cell phones for carpoolers to facilitate timing of pick-ups. Employers have little incentive to implement vehicle trip reduction programs if they are not granted reductions in minimum parking requirements. They would not be able to realize the potential cost savings from providing less parking, but would simply be faced with a large number of empty spaces. Some cities, such as South San Francisco (see box), have acknowledged this through ordinances that reduce parking requirements for projects that include vehicle trip reduction programs. Pricing Strategies Although parking is often provided at no charge to the user, it is never free. Each space in a parking structure can cost upwards of $2,500 per year in maintenance, operations, and the amortization of land and construction costs. Even on-street spaces incur maintenance costs and an opportunity cost in forgone land value. These costs end up hidden in rental fees and even in the costs of goods and services. Donald Shoup, Professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, has published extensively on parking policy in the United States. He believes that accurately pricing parking would solve many park- 28

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions ing problems (Shoup, 2005). The cost of parking is generally subsumed into lease fees or sale prices. However, providing anything for free or at highly subsidized rates encourages overuse and means that more parking spaces have to be provided. Charging users for parking is a market-based approach that passes the true cost of parking to users, and encourages use of other transportation modes. If the fee charged to users of parking facilities is sufficient to cover construction, operation, and maintenance costs, it may encourage some users to seek alternative Travel Demand Management Ordinance South San Francisco, California South San Francisco is one of the few cities in the U.S. to enact a citywide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance, which allows reduced parking requirements for projects meeting TDM requirements. The ordinance applies to all nonresidential developments that expect to generate 100 or more average daily trips, or to projects seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. Parking reductions are not fixed, but are subject to case-by-case review and depend on the number and extent of TDM elements. For example, the brownfield, mixed-use Bay West Cove development, which is located close to transit and bus service, was able to reduce required parking by 10 percent by implementing the following TDM strategies: Free parking for carpools and vanpools. Late-night taxi service and feeder shuttle service. Transit subsidy of $25 per month for all tenant employees. Late-night taxi service and feeder shuttle service. Guaranteed ride home program. Provision of a transportation coordinator. On-site project amenities such as child care, showers and lockers, electric vehicle charging, bicycle storage facilities, and a transit information kiosk. Parking charges of at least $20 per month for employee parking spaces. Developers can use the savings from reduced parking construction and the income from paid parking to offset or cover the costs of implementing such programs. Source: City of South San Francisco, 2003. transport modes. Even where there are few alternatives to driving, parking pricing can encourage employees to seek out carpooling partners. In addition to reducing the cost of parking provision, pricing strategies bring substantial environmental and congestion benefits, particularly since they tend to reduce peak-period vehicle trips the most. However, free parking is an ingrained American tradition. An estimated 99 percent (Shoup, 2005) of parking in the United States is free. How can paying for parking ever be a good thing for drivers? Drivers are willing to pay for parking that is more convenient and readily available. For example, onstreet spaces near shopping destinations are much more likely to be available to customers if priced and regulated to prioritize short stays -- if they are free, they will be used for all-day parking by employees or residents. For residents, separating the cost of parking from the cost of rent or a mortgage provides an economic benefit to those who choose to own fewer cars. In addition, the revenue generating from putting an accurate value on parking can be used to benefit an entire neighborhood. For commuters, making the cost of parking part of the decision on how to get to work encourages transit use and other alternatives, reducing traffic congestion. Parking charges have been found to reduce employee vehicle trips, and thus daily parking demand, by between 7 percent and 30 percent 29

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions or more, depending on factors such as the level of charges and the availability of alternatives to driving alone. One researcher has calculated that each 1 percent rise in parking fees is accompanied by a 0.3 percent decrease in demand (Pratt, 2000). Cities and developers are using a variety of pricing strategies to better balance parking demand and supply. They include parking cash-out programs, pricing that prioritizes certain types of trips, residential parking plans, and parking benefit districts. Cash-Out Programs Cash-out programs allow employees to choose a transportation benefit, rather than simply accepting the traditional free parking space. Under such programs, employers offer employees the choice of: Free or subsidized parking, A transit or vanpool subsidy equal to the value of the parking (of which up to $100 per month is tax-free under current federal law), or A taxable payment approximately equal to the value of the parking, essentially cash to commuters who bicycle or walk to work. Employees who opt for the non-parking subsidies are not eligible to receive free parking from the employer and are responsible for their parking charges on days when they drive to work. The cost savings for employers 30

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions associated with cash-out payments depend on the amount of the payments. If the full cash equivalent is provided, this demand reduction program does not reduce the total costs of providing parking. However, employees may accept cash payments lower than the full equivalent of the parking subsidy. If partial cash payments are used, employers face lower overall transportation subsidy costs, and employees still benefit. The programs help end the inequity of providing a free parking space benefit to drivers, while offering nothing to those who choose to arrive via transit, foot, or bicycle. Cash-out programs are often easier to implement than direct charges, as they are generally more acceptable to employees, particularly when free parking had been the norm. However, their impact on travel behavior is usually lower, due to the administrative burden on employees, inertia in changing travel habits, and the fact that cash-out payments can be a taxable benefit whereas free parking is not. Cash-out programs provide significant environmental, social, and economic benefits. For example, in response to California s mandatory cash-out requirement, eight firms reported an average 17 percent reduction in the total number of solo drivers (Shoup, 1997a). Thus, another benefit of cash-out programs is a reduction in traffic congestion and associated pollution. Prioritizing Trips Parking pricing can be a tool to prioritize some types of trips over others, according to their purpose and duration. It allows managers to cater to certain users, such as short-term shoppers, while discouraging other users, such as commuters, who add to peak-hour congestion and occupy a parking space for an entire day. These pricing strategies allow the overall supply of parking to be minimized, while ensuring spaces are available for critical users. They can also alleviate pressure to provide more parking from retailers and businesses, who may be concerned that lack of parking discourages shoppers. For example: Cash-Out Program Santa Monica, California In 1992, California instituted a mandatory cash-out program. The California Health and Safety Code Section 43834 reads, Parking cash-out program means an employer-funded program under which an employer offers to provide a cash allowance to an employee equivalent to the parking subsidy that the employer would otherwise pay to provide the employee with a parking space. The effects of the cash-out program on transportation use in Santa Monica have been significant. A study conducted by Donald Shoup of the UCLA found that for two Santa Monica employers, the share of solo commuters decreased by between 7 and 8 percent once the cash-out program was in place. This reduction in solo commuters is responsible for a decrease in annual commuting of 858 vehicle miles (Shoup, 1997a). Low prices for short-term parking encourages shopping trips, and limiting the duration of parking can also support these high-turnover trips. For example, charging $0.25 per hour with a two-hour maximum will allow many people to use a single space over the course of a day. The same space priced at $2.50 for up to ten hours will likely serve a single commuter. The parking revenue might be the same, but the sales for businesses and sales tax for the city will likely be much higher with short-term parking. 31

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions Parking charges that are levied by the hour or day, with no discounts for monthly parking, remove the incentive to drive every day to get your money s worth from the monthly parking pass. Parking charges at transit stations that only apply before a certain time (such as 9:00 am) encourage users to ride transit when it is less crowded, rather than contributing to crowding in the peak. Sophisticated new parking meters can charge visitors a different rate than residents or employees with parking permits, preserving parking for regular users while maximizing revenue from occasional users. Residential Parking Pricing Parking charges can also be introduced at residential developments, through separating or unbundling the cost of parking from rents or sale prices. Rather than being provided with a set number of spaces whether they need them or not, residents can choose how many spaces they wish to purchase or rent. An alternative to direct charges is to provide rent rebates or discounts to residents who own fewer vehicles and do not use their allocated parking spaces. In many urban areas with limited offstreet parking, curb parking is reserved for residents through residential parking permit programs. In most cases these programs give residents free or very inexpensive curb parking permits and prohibit anyone else from parking there. However, this can leave many spaces unused during the day when nearby businesses could use extra parking. A few communities, including Aspen Colorado and Tucson Arizona, are experimenting with allowing businesses to buy permits in these areas at very high rates, or are charging hourly parking fees (Shoup, 2005). The revenue generated can be used to benefit the neighborhood, in one version of a parking benefit district, as described below. Parking Benefit Districts The revenue from parking can be used to directly benefit the street or the 32

Parking Spaces / Community Places: Finding the Balance through Smart Growth Solutions neighborhood where the money is collected. Parking benefit districts receive the revenue from meters and residential permits within the district. Once administrative costs are covered, all money goes to transportation and neighborhood improvements such as undergrounding of utility wires (Shoup, 1995), regular street and sidewalk cleaning, installation of benches, nice lighting, or other amenities. Parking benefit districts can allow new development to use available on-street and other spaces, while addressing potential capacity problems through market pricing of curb and off-street parking. Earmarking revenue to directly benefit the neighborhood or commercial district helps to generate support for charges from local residents and businesses, who might otherwise resist paying for parking that used to be free. Often, local residents or businesses have a say in how the newly available revenue will be spent. The most common use of Parking Benefit Districts has been in downtown business districts, usually using parking meter revenue. Cities such as San Diego and Pasadena, California, have implemented such districts. The concept also applies to residential areas. Most residential parking permit programs give residents free or very inexpensive curb parking permits and prohibit anyone else from parking there. However, this can leave many spaces unused during the day when nearby businesses could use extra parking, and neighborhoods could certainly use the revenue that could be generated by charging for street parking.. A few communities, including Aspen Colorado and Tucson Arizona, are experimenting with allowing businesses to buy permits in these areas at very high rates, or are charging hourly parking fees (Shoup, 2005). Furthermore, this concept can be refined based on the neighborhood. For example, a neighborhood adjacent to an institution such as a hospital or university might implement a two-tiered residential permit program. Residents could buy permits at one rate, while excess on-street capacity would be sold at market value to non-residents. 33